Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Abandon NULL for (0)
Message-ID: <152@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 22 Sep 89 15:50:16 GMT
References: <6502@ux.cs.man.ac.uk> <14718@bfmny0.UU.NET> <146@bbxsda.UUCP> <17505@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 26

In article <17505@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jas@postgres.berkeley.edu (Jim Shankland) writes:

 >>At home I use 0 for a null pointer.  I test pointers with expressions
 >>like:
 >>       if (pointer)...			/* at home */
 >>       if (!pointer)...
 >
 >Stylistically a little dubious, in my opinion, but certainly widely
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess that's where personal preference comes in.  I consider it
a lot easier to read that way (and to type in :-).

 >>as opposed to
 >>
 >>       if (pointer!=(char *)0)		/* at work */
 >>
 >Modern C compilers will reliably generate warnings on this if `pointer'
 >has any type other than `char *'.

Sorry I wasn't clear on this.  It was simply a general example.  Of
course I would use the appropriate pointer type in the cast.

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232