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: Religion vs. Reality  (no smiling allowed)
Message-ID: <34@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Apr-87 11:17:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.34
Posted: Wed Apr 29 11:17:56 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 1-May-87 01:07:26 EDT
References: <31@thirdi.UUCP> <17498@sun.uucp> <33@thirdi.UUCP> <17576@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: peter@thirdi.UUCP (Peter Rowell)
Organization: Third Eye Software, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 31

In article <17576@sun.uucp> guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
>..... you also indicate the reason why you chose this technique was,
>in fact, that embedding a cast in the definition of NULL is NOT
>sufficient to solve the problem.
> ......
>As such, why do people continue to argue that there is some merit to
>defining NULL as something other than 0?

You are correct.  My point was simply that by having NULL be a (char *)0,
it might nail fewer people.  It will not save anyone from a truly bizare
system.

>For those of you who came in late, I present the following ....

You are also correct in that I missed the original.

> .....
>[I] will devote a lot more effort to fixing incorrect implementations on
>which correct code doesn't work than I will devote to "fixing"
>correct implementations on which incorrect code doesn't work.

Actually, if more people working for machine vendors had this attitude,
developers would probably have to spend less time thinking of the most
paranoid way to write a piece of code.  Unfortunately, there are a number
of major corporations producing "UNIX" systems which seem to be indifferent
to broken or non-conforming code, incapable of fixing it, or down right proud
of their "improvements".

Maybe, someday, there will be independently generated "report cards" on
how well various systems adhere to various standards.  Sort of a Consumer's
Reports for C/UNIX/whatever.  (Dream, Peter, Dream....)