Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: sizeof a struc field
Message-ID: <11333@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 19 Oct 89 09:32:57 GMT
References: <7710@microsoft.UUCP> <11086@smoke.BRL.MIL> <131@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil> <11280@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1890@uwbull.uwbln.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <1890@uwbull.uwbln.UUCP> ckl@uwbln.UUCP (Christoph Kuenkel) writes:
>In article <11280@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>> That's not what I've been saying.  Garbage constructs have no type.
>> ((thing*)0)->member is a garbage construct.  It has no type.
>for me, ((thing *)0) sounds quite reasonable.  ...
>so *why* does the standard define it to be garbage?

Why is it that people keep citing one thing then reading it as something
else?

((thing *)0) is of course JUST FINE.  How about reading what I SAID.