Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: gcc and NULL function pointers.
Message-ID: <16540@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 26 Jun 91 18:39:19 GMT
References: <1146.Jun2221.20.2291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <16506@smoke.brl.mil> <17605.Jun2607.39.3591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <17605.Jun2607.39.3591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>So it's better to stop the bugs---and possibly crashes---in nine cases
>out of ten than to pretend that all programs conform to the standard. Right?

No, it's better to detect coding errors as soon as possible so they can
be remedied.  Anyone porting crappy code is being unreasonable to think
that it "works" just because he doesn't NOTICE any errors in it.  I'm
not concerned with crappy code, but rather with correct code.

>By the way, I'm curious: Why is ((char *)0) ``simply wrong''?

Because it is!  It doesn't have the right properties (automatic coercion
into other pointer types, for example).