Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond
From: diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Subject: Re: gcc and NULL function pointers.
Message-ID: <1991Jun10.073125.25120@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System)
Reply-To: diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
References: <16386@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> <1991Jun4.012914.25418@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <4641@inews.intel.com> <1991Jun10.061202.25199@kithrup.COM>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 07:31:25 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jun10.061202.25199@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>In article <4641@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>Better, su to root and erase the `(void *)' part.  The most
>>general, and therefore most valuable, way to define NULL is
>>to simply map it to the digit 0.
>
>This does not handle the case where a prototype is not in scope.  E.g.
>	void
>	foo() {
>		bar(NULL);
>	}

Yes indeed, the best way to implement a processor for the language does not
handle the case where a programmer doesn't know how to use the language.
So what?
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.