Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!dayton!viper!john
From: john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: pointer debate raging on...  (LONG)
Message-ID: <918@viper.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-May-87 16:40:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: viper.918
Posted: Fri May  1 16:40:27 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 3-May-87 01:54:07 EDT
References: <149@sds.UUCP> <17446@sun.uucp> <917@viper.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley)
Organization: DynaSoft Systems
Lines: 33


I realize it's a bit odd to "reply" to my own message, but I noticed
a problem with my reply and felt compelled to qualify one point...

In article <917@viper.UUCP> john@viper.UUCP (John Stanley) writes:
 >
 >The answer to this was given in my original reply.  The only pointer
 >type which is data nonspecific is void*, thus NULL should be ((void*)0).
 >I have used this on enough projects to know it works
................

  I should have mentioned that I haven't yet worked with one of the
(rumored?) systems or compilers which have different sized pointers
for different data types.

  BTW:  Has anyone actualy used one of these odd systems?  I've only
heard the traditional rumors but have never heard actual systems or
compilers named...  Anyone know of a specific example?



  The message by Peter Rowell which gave the recomendation of having 
seperate "NULL" pointers for each data type is a good workable 
alternative but is not likely to aquire much of a following because 
the number of systems it effects is so small. (That doesn't make it 
a bad idea, but it's something "extra" the programmer would have to 
deal with that's not likely to give an advantage on his/her system..
The general response will be "why bother?")

--- 
John Stanley (john@viper.UUCP)
Software Consultant - DynaSoft Systems
UUCP: ...{amdahl,ihnp4,rutgers}!{meccts,dayton}!viper!john