Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Abandon NULL for (0)
Message-ID: <14718@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 21 Sep 89 17:15:11 GMT
References: <6502@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 13
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <6502@ux.cs.man.ac.uk> ian@ux.cs.man.ac.uk (Ian Cottam) writes:
> I propose that the integral constant expression (0) be used instead of
> NULL.

However (0) is not explicitly cast to a pointer type, as NULL may be
presumed to be when appropriate.  For instance if I refer to, but do not
declare or define, an external routine that accepts a single pointer as
its argument, by saying myproc((0)), the compiler will Miranda it into a
regular int, rather that ((void *) 0), which might have a different size
and representation.
-- 
"UNIX should be used          ::   Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET> or
 as an adjective." -- AT&T   ::    ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP only)