Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!targon!gert
From: gert@targon.UUCP (Gert Kanis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: NULL
Summary: Why different definitions
Keywords: NULL (void *)0
Message-ID: <1805@targon.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jun 91 15:05:58 GMT
References: <57132@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Informationsystems BV.,SWZ, Vianen, the Netherlands.
Lines: 27

In article <57132@nigel.ee.udel.edu> (Christoph van Wuellen) writes:
>We had endless discussions on NULL last year, so let me summarize.
>
>#define NULL 0 is correct, the faulting code is wrong. POINT.
>
>C.v.W.

Well, but still .. why have different definitions ?
As, the original poster stated:

In article <33822@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) wrote:
>
>In /usr/include/stdio.h, #define NULL 0
>In /usr/include/*.h (all others), #define NULL ((void *)0)
>

Whatever is the best choice but why not the same in *all* header files?
Or even better define it only once
  (I suppose historical reasons prohibit that)

BTW: (void *)0 would be OK in ANSI-C.
--
Gert Kanis, AP SWZ SWP                          +----------------------+
Siemens Nixdorf Information systems             | I do not represent   |
P.O.box 29,  4130 EA Vianen, Netherlands.       | anyone elses opinion.|
E-mail: outside Europe: kanis.via@sni-usa.com   +----------------------+
Europe: gert@targon.UUCP  Alternative: kanis.via@sni.de