What does the following syntax mean (function declared inside a function)

Code:

---

char ** parse(char *line) {
        char        *newstr();
        .
        .
        .
        .
}

char *newstr(char *s, int l) {
        .
        .
}

---

newstr is declared inside the function parse.

In the list of function prototypes in the beginning of the file, newstr is the only one undeclared.

What does it mean? Does it act like a function prototype? What's the advantage? How come newstr declared inside parse does not contain any parameters?

[Edit]
Might as well link where I found the source code
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/ob...de/ch09/smsh.h
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/ob...09/splitline.c

It is a function prototype.

While I think it is technically allowed, there is nothing to gain from declaring a function in another as you could not define it inside the function either, effectively where the function name is in scope.

There are better string libraries out there if you need one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

It is a function prototype.

While I think it is technically allowed, there is nothing to gain from declaring a function in another as you could not define it inside the function either, effectively where the function name is in scope.

There are better string libraries out there if you need one.

---

It could be there to make sure that only parse has access to newstr (like class member functions in Sepples)

That is not how it's done in C. Declare a function with the static keyword if you want to restrict access to a translation unit.

static char * newstring ( void );

But that's as close as it gets. Otherwise, if a function name is not in global scope it should be undeclared.

It is perfectly legal to do this, and it's making it clear to any reader that this function is not used anywhere else [at least not BEFORE the function has been defined!] since the newstr prototype goes out of scope when at the end of parse.

--
Mats

I understand that it is legal, but is there any legitimate reason to omit the argument types from the function declaration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Stiltskin

I understand that it is legal, but is there any legitimate reason to omit the argument types from the function declaration?

---

i think its an error not to write the argument types while declaring the function.and also no arguments while declaration means it can take any unknown number of arguments while actually in the definition it is taking two parameters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BEN10

i think its an error not to write the argument types while declaring the function.and also no arguments while declaration means it can take any unknown number of arguments while actually in the definition it is taking two parameters.

---

I think that by "error" you mean "mistake" or "bad practice" rather than something that can be interpreted as "compile error".