Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site basservax.SUN
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mulga!munnari!basservax!kvm
From: kvm@basservax.SUN
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: more leaves terminal in ul mode (& NULL, the last word?)
Message-ID: <210@basservax.SUN>
Date: Thu, 12-Jan-84 00:33:35 EST
Article-I.D.: basserva.210
Posted: Thu Jan 12 00:33:35 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jan-84 01:26:41 EST
References: <2472@azure.UUCP>
Organization: Dept of C.S., University of Sydney
Lines: 23

I suggest that you don't spend a lot of time worrying about --More--.
It has perhaps consumed more programmer effort than any other tiny
"write-in-an-evening" program that I have ever seen.  I have seen
numerous versions with various combinations of "fixes", they all
suffer from the initial bad design and implementation.  Do yourself
a favour and write yourself a scroller, even the humble BTL "p" will
bring you less pain.

I expect I should say something about null pointers too, you said:

	they'd checked some potentially null pointers before
	dereferencing them, but compared them to 0 instead of
	NULL, and...

I admit that saying 0 rather than NULL is bad style, but like it
or not, sport, 0 is NULL.  These folk stories about NULL may never had
begun if we had read our C Ref Mans.

7.7:	"A pointer may be compared to an integer only if the integer is
	the constant 0.  A pointer to which 0 has been assigned is
	guaranteed not to point to any object, and will appear to be
	equal to 0; in conventional usage, such a pointer is considered
	to be null."