Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!apple!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!chad
From: chad@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (D. Chadwick Gibbons)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Abandon NULL for (0)
Keywords: NULL, nil
Message-ID: <151@uwm.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 89 19:01:10 GMT
References: <6502@ux.cs.man.ac.uk> <14718@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Reply-To: chad@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (D. Chadwick Gibbons)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lines: 24

In article <14718@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
|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.

	So?  When 0 used in a comparison with a pointer, it is automatically
promoted to an integer pointer of an appropriate type.

|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.

	yeah, talk about assuming sizeof * = sizeof int. Nononono!

If you're really parinoid about using NULL, because your compiler may do
something like the above person is suggestion, then try this:

#define NIL	(0)

simple, no?