Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!peter
From: peter@thirdi.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: pointer debate raging on...
Message-ID: <32@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Apr-87 15:47:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.32
Posted: Tue Apr 28 15:47:04 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Apr-87 01:59:11 EDT
References: <149@sds.UUCP> <31@thirdi.UUCP> <6479@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: peter@thirdi.UUCP (Peter Rowell)
Organization: Third Eye Software, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 24
Keywords: poor choice of words, poor choice of examples


In article <6479@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>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.

The *intention* of my remark (poorly expressed) was:

There are a number of programmers who use "NULL" as their standard null pointer.
I will not argue that they "should not do that".  I agree they shouldn't.
The fact of the matter is that they do so with amazing regularity. My use
of the word "require" was meant in the sense that if C programmers in
general insist on using NULL as a generic null pointer, then it is not
unreasonable to ask that the person defining NULL should do so in
such a way as to cause as few "gotchya's" as possible.  This may not
always be possible, but then Life is a Bitch.

As stated in my previous note, I am addressing What Is as opposed to
What Should Be.  The ANSI committe is working on the later.  In the
mean time, we must all live with the former.