Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site hwcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!ukc!edcaad!hwcs!andrew
From: andrew@hwcs.UUCP (Andrew Stewart)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: NULL as a pointer value...
Message-ID: <127@hwcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jul-84 14:10:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: hwcs.127
Posted: Thu Jul 12 14:10:52 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jul-84 06:42:21 EDT
Distribution: net.unix-wizards,net.lang.c
Organization: Computer Sci., Heriot-Watt U., Scotland
Lines: 24

I am in the depths of yet another discussion about types in C, and I'm
looking for comments, etc. on this:
	Which is better coding style,
		char	*x; .....  x = (char *)NULL;
	or
		char	*x; .....  x = NULL;
I am unhappy about NULL as a polymorphic pointer type, since it's actually
just a macro, *but* is that relevant? K&R say (can't recall where) that
NULL is an illegal pointer for *any* object, and yet
		x = NULL; .... y = *x;
will not blow up, unless you do clever things with page 0.
And what about
		return((char *)NULL);
	or
		return(NULL);

This may have been aired before - if so, forgive me - but it seems
rather interesting.

----------------
"Not a bug, a feature! It's documented, dash it!"
	Andrew Stewart.
	...!vax135!ukc!edcaad!hwcs!andrew	(UUCP)