Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!usc!wuarchive!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: JRComm, VLT, Handshake
Message-ID: <34802@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 90 22:14:12 GMT
References: <458@faatcrl.UUCP> <15418@cbmvax.commodore.com> <466@faatcrl.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 16
Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu

In article <466@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes:
>  But, my question is the NULL pointer itself, if NULL is a valid constant,
>then the location NULL should contain nothing either, right?

Zero is a valid value for an integer, but you can't divide by it.
NULL is a valid value for a pointer, but you can't indirect by it.
Since most people don't intend to indirect by NULL, and most static
pointers begin life as NULL, most people assume that if you get bit
by the NULL pointer mistake that it was because you had an uninitialized
pointer.  I actually find (in my experience) it is more often failure
to check for errors from malloc() than uninititalized pointers. -- Darren
-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, 
      Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee -----