Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: NULL vs 0
Message-ID: <1589@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jan-84 17:49:46 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1589
Posted: Fri Jan 20 17:49:46 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jan-84 07:37:34 EST
References: <345@hocda.UUCP> <2406@rabbit.UUCP> <4808@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2209@ihldt.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 13

Probably, nothing would break if NULL were defined as 0L in <stdio.h> on
machines with sizeof(int) == 2 and sizeof(XXX *) == 4, but 1) it would not
shut "lint" up - and when it complains that you really should cast 0 to
(char *)0, one should listen as there may be machines on which the cast
is necessary - and 2) it wouldn't help if you just used 0 instead of NULL.
Remember, NULL is just sugar over the 0; the language says 0 may be coerced
to a pointer.  I've seen tons of programs which use 0 rather than NULL.  The
program may not include <stdio.h>, and if every program #defined NULL as 0L
the program would no longer be portable.

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy