Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!cca!ISM780!darryl
From: darryl@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: how has C bitten you?  (Really,
Message-ID: <30000013@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 11:40:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ISM780.30000013
Posted: Tue Sep 10 11:40:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 03:38:01 EDT
References: <259@watmum.UUCP>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:watmum:-25900:ISM780:30000013:000:854
Nf-From: ISM780!darryl    Sep 10 11:40:00 1985


>> Although this does not seal it up completely, it seems that K&R had it in
>> mind that putting pointers into integers (and taking them back again) would
>> have no overhead....
>
>True, but there is a subtle point here:  they say you can convert pointers
>to (sufficiently large) integers, they may say that you can convert the
>result back, but they don't say what the integer will look like.

Henry, you and I are NOT arguing;  I agree that the implicit conversion of
0 to a null pointer only happens for constant 0s.  Perhaps I was less than
completely clear, but I wanted to be sure (hah!) that the netters would
understand that 0 and an int variable containing the value 0 are (may be)
treated differently here.

	    --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.
	    ...!cca!ima!ism780!darryl
	    The views expressed above are my opinions only.