Function pointer with named arguments?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I recently came across a strange syntax in C program.
struct connector_agent_api{
bool (*receive)(slot *s, uint8_t *data, uint8_t length);
}
Is "receive" a function pointer?
If it is a function pointer, why does it have named arguments? Should it be like the following one?
bool (*receive)(slot *, uint8_t *, uint8_t);
It certainly compiled and being used in a library. I searched on internet a lot and tried to justify this kind of syntax. I still don't know why this thing can be compiled... :(
c function pointers
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
add a comment |
I recently came across a strange syntax in C program.
struct connector_agent_api{
bool (*receive)(slot *s, uint8_t *data, uint8_t length);
}
Is "receive" a function pointer?
If it is a function pointer, why does it have named arguments? Should it be like the following one?
bool (*receive)(slot *, uint8_t *, uint8_t);
It certainly compiled and being used in a library. I searched on internet a lot and tried to justify this kind of syntax. I still don't know why this thing can be compiled... :(
c function pointers
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
20
These names are for self-documentation only, they have no meaning for the functionality.
– Eugene Sh.
Apr 26 at 16:20
7
Note this is very much like a function declaration in a header file, where parameter names are optional and have no effect on the resulting program.
– jdehesa
Apr 26 at 16:21
2
@EugeneSh. Same as for any other function declaration that's not a definition.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 26 at 21:04
add a comment |
I recently came across a strange syntax in C program.
struct connector_agent_api{
bool (*receive)(slot *s, uint8_t *data, uint8_t length);
}
Is "receive" a function pointer?
If it is a function pointer, why does it have named arguments? Should it be like the following one?
bool (*receive)(slot *, uint8_t *, uint8_t);
It certainly compiled and being used in a library. I searched on internet a lot and tried to justify this kind of syntax. I still don't know why this thing can be compiled... :(
c function pointers
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
I recently came across a strange syntax in C program.
struct connector_agent_api{
bool (*receive)(slot *s, uint8_t *data, uint8_t length);
}
Is "receive" a function pointer?
If it is a function pointer, why does it have named arguments? Should it be like the following one?
bool (*receive)(slot *, uint8_t *, uint8_t);
It certainly compiled and being used in a library. I searched on internet a lot and tried to justify this kind of syntax. I still don't know why this thing can be compiled... :(
c function pointers
c function pointers
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
edited Apr 26 at 16:24
John Kugelman
253k55412464
253k55412464
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
asked Apr 26 at 16:18
ZuckerReisZuckerReis
857
857
20
These names are for self-documentation only, they have no meaning for the functionality.
– Eugene Sh.
Apr 26 at 16:20
7
Note this is very much like a function declaration in a header file, where parameter names are optional and have no effect on the resulting program.
– jdehesa
Apr 26 at 16:21
2
@EugeneSh. Same as for any other function declaration that's not a definition.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 26 at 21:04
add a comment |
20
These names are for self-documentation only, they have no meaning for the functionality.
– Eugene Sh.
Apr 26 at 16:20
7
Note this is very much like a function declaration in a header file, where parameter names are optional and have no effect on the resulting program.
– jdehesa
Apr 26 at 16:21
2
@EugeneSh. Same as for any other function declaration that's not a definition.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 26 at 21:04
20
20
These names are for self-documentation only, they have no meaning for the functionality.
– Eugene Sh.
Apr 26 at 16:20
These names are for self-documentation only, they have no meaning for the functionality.
– Eugene Sh.
Apr 26 at 16:20
7
7
Note this is very much like a function declaration in a header file, where parameter names are optional and have no effect on the resulting program.
– jdehesa
Apr 26 at 16:21
Note this is very much like a function declaration in a header file, where parameter names are optional and have no effect on the resulting program.
– jdehesa
Apr 26 at 16:21
2
2
@EugeneSh. Same as for any other function declaration that's not a definition.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 26 at 21:04
@EugeneSh. Same as for any other function declaration that's not a definition.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 26 at 21:04
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The names of arguments in a function pointer are optional, just as the names of arguments in a function declaration are optional. This is because parameter names if given are not used, so both formats are allowed.
In section 6.7.6.3 of the C standard regarding Function Declarators, which includes both function prototypes and function pointers, paragraph 6 states:
A parameter type list specifies the types of, and may
declare identifiers for, the parameters of the function.
The only place where function parameters require a name is in the actual definition of a function.
For a function definition, Section 6.9.1p5 states:
If the declarator includes a parameter type list, the
declaration of each parameter shall include an identifier, except
for the special case of a parameter list consisting of a single
parameter of type void , in which case there shall not be an
identifier. No declaration list shall follow.
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
add a comment |
What makes you think it is a strange syntax? It is a valid declaration as per C standard. The fact that the parameters are named is irrelevant. The naming of such parameters is optional in this case. It can be really helpful if you or someone else is using an IDE because it could display the complete prototype upon using the function pointer to call the function and thus give a hint to the coder about the arguments to be supplied.
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
1
It is also helpful because this sort of struct is used to sort of fake object-like syntax. If the type is actually one meant for the functions to be invoked externally it helps to name the parameters as part of the documentation for that external interface. You are more likely to see code with unnamed parameters to function pointers when the pointers are a callback (rather than call-in).
– SoronelHaetir
Apr 27 at 4:04
@SoronelHaetir Thanks! I like your point on the call-back and call-in.
– ZuckerReis
Apr 28 at 19:39
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55871507%2ffunction-pointer-with-named-arguments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The names of arguments in a function pointer are optional, just as the names of arguments in a function declaration are optional. This is because parameter names if given are not used, so both formats are allowed.
In section 6.7.6.3 of the C standard regarding Function Declarators, which includes both function prototypes and function pointers, paragraph 6 states:
A parameter type list specifies the types of, and may
declare identifiers for, the parameters of the function.
The only place where function parameters require a name is in the actual definition of a function.
For a function definition, Section 6.9.1p5 states:
If the declarator includes a parameter type list, the
declaration of each parameter shall include an identifier, except
for the special case of a parameter list consisting of a single
parameter of type void , in which case there shall not be an
identifier. No declaration list shall follow.
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
add a comment |
The names of arguments in a function pointer are optional, just as the names of arguments in a function declaration are optional. This is because parameter names if given are not used, so both formats are allowed.
In section 6.7.6.3 of the C standard regarding Function Declarators, which includes both function prototypes and function pointers, paragraph 6 states:
A parameter type list specifies the types of, and may
declare identifiers for, the parameters of the function.
The only place where function parameters require a name is in the actual definition of a function.
For a function definition, Section 6.9.1p5 states:
If the declarator includes a parameter type list, the
declaration of each parameter shall include an identifier, except
for the special case of a parameter list consisting of a single
parameter of type void , in which case there shall not be an
identifier. No declaration list shall follow.
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
add a comment |
The names of arguments in a function pointer are optional, just as the names of arguments in a function declaration are optional. This is because parameter names if given are not used, so both formats are allowed.
In section 6.7.6.3 of the C standard regarding Function Declarators, which includes both function prototypes and function pointers, paragraph 6 states:
A parameter type list specifies the types of, and may
declare identifiers for, the parameters of the function.
The only place where function parameters require a name is in the actual definition of a function.
For a function definition, Section 6.9.1p5 states:
If the declarator includes a parameter type list, the
declaration of each parameter shall include an identifier, except
for the special case of a parameter list consisting of a single
parameter of type void , in which case there shall not be an
identifier. No declaration list shall follow.
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
The names of arguments in a function pointer are optional, just as the names of arguments in a function declaration are optional. This is because parameter names if given are not used, so both formats are allowed.
In section 6.7.6.3 of the C standard regarding Function Declarators, which includes both function prototypes and function pointers, paragraph 6 states:
A parameter type list specifies the types of, and may
declare identifiers for, the parameters of the function.
The only place where function parameters require a name is in the actual definition of a function.
For a function definition, Section 6.9.1p5 states:
If the declarator includes a parameter type list, the
declaration of each parameter shall include an identifier, except
for the special case of a parameter list consisting of a single
parameter of type void , in which case there shall not be an
identifier. No declaration list shall follow.
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
edited Apr 26 at 18:49
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
answered Apr 26 at 16:31
dbushdbush
107k15113151
107k15113151
add a comment |
add a comment |
What makes you think it is a strange syntax? It is a valid declaration as per C standard. The fact that the parameters are named is irrelevant. The naming of such parameters is optional in this case. It can be really helpful if you or someone else is using an IDE because it could display the complete prototype upon using the function pointer to call the function and thus give a hint to the coder about the arguments to be supplied.
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
1
It is also helpful because this sort of struct is used to sort of fake object-like syntax. If the type is actually one meant for the functions to be invoked externally it helps to name the parameters as part of the documentation for that external interface. You are more likely to see code with unnamed parameters to function pointers when the pointers are a callback (rather than call-in).
– SoronelHaetir
Apr 27 at 4:04
@SoronelHaetir Thanks! I like your point on the call-back and call-in.
– ZuckerReis
Apr 28 at 19:39
add a comment |
What makes you think it is a strange syntax? It is a valid declaration as per C standard. The fact that the parameters are named is irrelevant. The naming of such parameters is optional in this case. It can be really helpful if you or someone else is using an IDE because it could display the complete prototype upon using the function pointer to call the function and thus give a hint to the coder about the arguments to be supplied.
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
1
It is also helpful because this sort of struct is used to sort of fake object-like syntax. If the type is actually one meant for the functions to be invoked externally it helps to name the parameters as part of the documentation for that external interface. You are more likely to see code with unnamed parameters to function pointers when the pointers are a callback (rather than call-in).
– SoronelHaetir
Apr 27 at 4:04
@SoronelHaetir Thanks! I like your point on the call-back and call-in.
– ZuckerReis
Apr 28 at 19:39
add a comment |
What makes you think it is a strange syntax? It is a valid declaration as per C standard. The fact that the parameters are named is irrelevant. The naming of such parameters is optional in this case. It can be really helpful if you or someone else is using an IDE because it could display the complete prototype upon using the function pointer to call the function and thus give a hint to the coder about the arguments to be supplied.
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
What makes you think it is a strange syntax? It is a valid declaration as per C standard. The fact that the parameters are named is irrelevant. The naming of such parameters is optional in this case. It can be really helpful if you or someone else is using an IDE because it could display the complete prototype upon using the function pointer to call the function and thus give a hint to the coder about the arguments to be supplied.
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
answered Apr 26 at 17:10
machine_1machine_1
2,74621332
2,74621332
1
It is also helpful because this sort of struct is used to sort of fake object-like syntax. If the type is actually one meant for the functions to be invoked externally it helps to name the parameters as part of the documentation for that external interface. You are more likely to see code with unnamed parameters to function pointers when the pointers are a callback (rather than call-in).
– SoronelHaetir
Apr 27 at 4:04
@SoronelHaetir Thanks! I like your point on the call-back and call-in.
– ZuckerReis
Apr 28 at 19:39
add a comment |
1
It is also helpful because this sort of struct is used to sort of fake object-like syntax. If the type is actually one meant for the functions to be invoked externally it helps to name the parameters as part of the documentation for that external interface. You are more likely to see code with unnamed parameters to function pointers when the pointers are a callback (rather than call-in).
– SoronelHaetir
Apr 27 at 4:04
@SoronelHaetir Thanks! I like your point on the call-back and call-in.
– ZuckerReis
Apr 28 at 19:39
1
1
It is also helpful because this sort of struct is used to sort of fake object-like syntax. If the type is actually one meant for the functions to be invoked externally it helps to name the parameters as part of the documentation for that external interface. You are more likely to see code with unnamed parameters to function pointers when the pointers are a callback (rather than call-in).
– SoronelHaetir
Apr 27 at 4:04
It is also helpful because this sort of struct is used to sort of fake object-like syntax. If the type is actually one meant for the functions to be invoked externally it helps to name the parameters as part of the documentation for that external interface. You are more likely to see code with unnamed parameters to function pointers when the pointers are a callback (rather than call-in).
– SoronelHaetir
Apr 27 at 4:04
@SoronelHaetir Thanks! I like your point on the call-back and call-in.
– ZuckerReis
Apr 28 at 19:39
@SoronelHaetir Thanks! I like your point on the call-back and call-in.
– ZuckerReis
Apr 28 at 19:39
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55871507%2ffunction-pointer-with-named-arguments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
20
These names are for self-documentation only, they have no meaning for the functionality.
– Eugene Sh.
Apr 26 at 16:20
7
Note this is very much like a function declaration in a header file, where parameter names are optional and have no effect on the resulting program.
– jdehesa
Apr 26 at 16:21
2
@EugeneSh. Same as for any other function declaration that's not a definition.
– Konrad Rudolph
Apr 26 at 21:04