Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Recursion, Yo
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:42:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <uvbko8$2ean1$2@dont-email.me>
References: <uut24f$2icpb$1@dont-email.me> <uutqd2$bhl0$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uv2u2a$41j5$1@dont-email.me> <87edbestmg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <uv4r9e$mdd3$1@dont-email.me> <uv5e3l$q885$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv5gfd$qum1$1@dont-email.me> <uv5lgl$s6uj$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv61f6$v1jm$1@dont-email.me> <uv68ok$11080$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv7a8n$18qf8$3@dont-email.me> <uv867l$1j8l6$1@dont-email.me>
 <_zSRN.161297$m4d.144795@fx43.iad> <20240411075825.30@kylheku.com>
 <r8TRN.114606$Wbff.54968@fx37.iad> <uva6ep$24ji7$1@dont-email.me>
 <uvah1j$26gtr$1@dont-email.me> <uvao71$27qit$1@dont-email.me>
 <uvb9r4$2c31v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:42:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b4e55c9728b3282b5449551fe3e50c2b";
	logging-data="2566881"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YJ9u0EVY401J49bt9ClX0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bjqI9FSSa1w1ryn4LMatxXyT6iQ=
In-Reply-To: <uvb9r4$2c31v$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2825

On 12/04/2024 13:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 12.04.2024 09:34, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:32:33 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>>> Ideally it would be (without syntactic ballast) just
>>>
>>>       res = func;
>>
>> Then there is no way to express a reference to the function itself, as
>> distinct from a call to it.
>>
>> Unless you do what Algol 68 did, and introduce the “deproceduring
>> coercion”, analogous to “dereferencing” which allowed doing away with any
>> explicit “address of x” and “the thingy whose address is in x” constructs.
> 
> It seems that's one of the fundamental differences between (low-level)
> languages that want to provide such technical factors explicit to the
> user and between languages that want to provide a higher abstraction.
> 
> Algol 60, Pascal, Simula 67 and Algol 60, Eiffel, etc. all took that
> approach.
> 
> Languages syntactically derived from C or borrowed its syntax didn't.

You don't say anything about C itself. C sometimes is explicit and 
sometimes it isn't:

    &F;             // both take the address of a function F
    F;

    P();            // both call a function via a pointer P
    (*P)();

So you can use an explicit & or * operator, not not.