> and when it is the operand of "&" Another slightly confusing aspect is that `&array` gives you a "pointer to array" (which has the same value as `&array[0]`,

> and when it is the operand of "&" Another slightly confusing aspect is that `&array` gives you a "pointer to array" (which has the same value as `&array[0]`, but is of a different type). Most importantly, it behaves differently in pointer arithmetic (the implied offset is the size of the array, rather than the size of its elements).