Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: pointer debate raging on...
Message-ID: <6479@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Apr-87 19:26:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.6479
Posted: Mon Apr 27 19:26:38 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Apr-87 01:12:10 EDT
References: <149@sds.UUCP> <31@thirdi.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 16
Keywords: pointers, religion, sin, Ritchie, razor blades, etc.

In article <31@thirdi.UUCP> peter@thirdi.UUCP (Peter Rowell) writes:
>As pointed out, environments where sizeof(int) != sizeof(char *)
>require NULL to be define'd as ((char *)0) (or some variation on that
>theme).

This is not true.  NULL can be, and indeed, in K&R C, NULL *must*
be, defined as 0.

>Unfortunately, this is not the end of this train of thought.
>There is NO guarantee I am aware of that sizeof(char *) ==
>sizeof(struct foo *)!

This *is* true.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
UUCP:	seismo!mimsy!chris	ARPA/CSNet:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu