Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!news
From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Is there a NULL pointer to functions?
Message-ID: <1991May29.154516.25898@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 29 May 91 15:45:16 GMT
References: <1991May21.125639.10052@umiami.ir.miami.edu> <16269@smoke.brl.mil> <632@gca.UUCP>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Reply-To: scs@adam.mit.edu
Organization: Thermal Technologies, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 14

In article <632@gca.UUCP> hinton@gca.UUCP (Edward Hinton) writes:
>Now I'm going back a ways, but C doesn't necessarily define
>NULL as 0, although it's been quite a while since I've seen
>a system where it isn't.  However, I recall a system where 0 WAS a
>valid address (small model on an 8086 based virtual memory system)
>and NULL was defined to be -1.

Regular readers of comp.lang.c recognize the fallacies in this
statement, and I've just sent Ed a copy of the comp.lang.c
frequently-asked questions list, so there should be no need to
comment further on this aspect of the problem.

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs@adam.mit.edu