Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!mcsun!unido!tub!uwbln!ckl From: ckl@uwbln.UUCP (Christoph Kuenkel) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: citing (was: Re: sizeof a struc field) Message-ID: <1909@uwbull.uwbln.UUCP> Date: 23 Oct 89 20:04:45 GMT References: <7710@microsoft.UUCP> <11086@smoke.BRL.MIL> <131@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil> <11333@smoke.BRL.MIL> Distribution: comp Organization: UniWare GmbH, Berlin Lines: 30 In article <11333@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article i wrote: > >> [gwyn, 0->.., garbage, no type, ...] > >for me, ((thing *)0) sounds quite reasonable. ... > > 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. oops! sorry! i have to apologize. of course i should have written ``((thing *) 0)->member sounds quite reasonable''. as you probably know, i am a friend of ``((thing *) 0)'' as opposed to NULL :-) if i'd really meant ``((thing *) 0)'' i would not have written > [..........................................]. i agree that there is no > meaningfull evaluation. [...] my point was, that the standards point of view doesnt seem intuitiv to me so that i would appreciate you to explain *why* it should be obvious to a good c programmer (or even to me :-) instead of just arguing that the standard says so. christoph ps: hu, pretty much emotions, cause of a null pointer... -- # include Christoph Kuenkel/UniWare GmbH Kantstr. 152, 1000 Berlin 12, West Germany ck@tub.BITNET ckl@uwbln {unido,tmpmbx,tub}!uwbln!ckl