Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: gcc and NULL function pointers.
Message-ID: <WB7CF-2@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 27 Jun 91 13:55:47 GMT
References: <1146.Jun2221.20.2291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <16506@smoke.brl.mil> <17605.Jun2607.39.3591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <16540@smoke.brl.mil>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 10

In article <16540@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> No, it's better to detect coding errors as soon as possible so they can
                     ^^^^^^

This is the critical word. In the case I brought up, and other similar cases,
the compiler cannot detect the coding error. It will silently produce bad code.
That, to me, is the worst possible outcome.
-- 
Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180;
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;         `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"