Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 629915
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T19:47:56+00:00 2026-05-13T19:47:56+00:00

I am reviewing some optimisation libraries and came across the function signature double solvopt(unsigned

  • 0

I am reviewing some optimisation libraries and came across the function signature

double solvopt(unsigned short n,
           double x[], 
           double fun(), 
           void grad(),
           double options[],
           double func(),
           void gradc()
          )

note that fun() and gard() are passed as function. My question is if this is valid standard C grammar.

Thanks.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T19:47:57+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 7:47 pm

    The use of double fun() rather than double (*fun)() is an archaic form, that was only valid in standard C and never in C++, and if I remember correctly, only when declaring a function argument. (much like ary[] which is legal for a function argument, but not for an uninitialized variable)

    Since it isn’t possible (in C) to pass a function by value to another function, the compiler just took double fun() to mean a pointer to a function that returned a double.

    So this is valid (but archaic. has fallen out of favor)

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.