Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!dog.ee.lbl.gov!elf.ee.lbl.gov!torek
From: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Do nil pointers convert to nil pointers?
Message-ID: <11202@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 20 Mar 91 21:38:35 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.234219.22867@cbnewsj.att.com> <1991Mar20.174710.4405@zoo.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 23
X-Local-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 13:38:35 PST

In article <1991Mar20.174710.4405@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu
(Henry Spencer) writes:
>(Point of terminology:  there is no such thing as "nil" in C.  You are
>talking about null pointers.)

True---but I sometimes advocate using `nil pointer' as a circumloction
for `null pointer of type T', simply because the very absence of the
`nil' keyword guarantees that you have to change *something*, whereas
if you say `a null pointer' it is not at all clear that you might have
to code something other than just `NULL'.

But alas, the new BSD man pages are going to continue to talk blithely
about `NULL' as if the compiler worked magic.  Fortunately, in this case
all the new man pages will say

	#include <foo.h>

and <foo.h> will contain all the necessary prototypes, so if you follow
the man page, you will have a prototype in scope, and the compiler *will*
work magic....
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 415 486 5427)
Berkeley, CA		Domain:	torek@ee.lbl.gov