Thread: A pointer to the first element of an array is a pointer to the array itself?

Just thinking, but could I get away with the claim that:

Given type array[10];

array is a type *const to the first element of the array? I would think this would address any potential l-value problems.

I'm afraid you couldn't get away with that claim either, eg,

Code:

template<int N>
void foo(int (&arr) [N] )
{
}

int main()
{
    int bar[5]; 
    foo( bar );   // ok

    int* const blah = bar;
//    foo( blah ) ;   //error
}

The type, int[], is different to int* const - While int[] may implicitly cast to int* const without problems, the opposite does not hold true



On the other hand, a claim you might be able to get away with, could be that given a declaration, T array[10]; , that the type of 'array' is equivalent to T(&)[10] (Perhaps someone else would like to support or dismiss that claim)

Originally Posted by Bench82

The type, int[], is different to int* const - While int[] may implicitly cast to int* const without problems, the opposite does not hold true

I never claimed the opposite. If a then b does not imply if b then a.

You're just using the wrong terminology.

array is an l-value denoting the array.

&array[0] is an r-value denoting the address of the first element of the array.

Whenever array is converted to an r-value, the resulting r-value is the same as &array[0].

But value alone is an ambiguous term.

array == &array[0] is only true because the first term has been implicitly converted to an r-value.