Re: Why no generic function pointers?

"copx" <> writes:
> Why doesn't the C standard include generic function pointers?
[...]

Remember that there are two distinct ways in which void* is a
"generic" object pointer.

One is that a conversion from foo* to void* and back again is
guaranteed to yield the original value, where foo is any object or
incomplete type. As others have mentioned, *all* function pointers
behave this way. If you want a single generic function pointer type,
I suggest void(*)(void), just because it's the simplest (a typedef
could be helpful).

The other way is that conversions between void* and foo* (foo as
above) may be done implicitly. This isn't the case for function
pointers, but that's just a matter of syntactic convenience.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson