typedefing functions (Re: Is typedef char BUFFER[20] legal?)

[Richard Kooijman]

henry at zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <ENAG.91Feb4192806 at holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> enag at ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) writes:
>>you can say
>>	typedef int f (int a, char *b);
>>and later say
>>	f foo, bar, zot;
>>and
>>	f *functab[3] = { foo, bar, zot, };

>Correct so far.

>>The functions would be declared
>>	f foo
>>	{ ... }

>Nope, wrong.  The function definition itself must contain an explicit
>function declarator; it cannot inherit its "functionness" from a typedef.
>See Constraints in 3.7.1.

But what is the reason? I think it severely limits the use of
typedef'ing functions, which could be otherwise very useful:

typedef void cntrlc_handler(void);

main()
{
	cntrlc_handler c_handler;

	signal(SIGINT, c_handler);
}

It is a shame to be forced to define c_handler again:


void c_handler(void)
{
   ...
}





Richard.