Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Writing readable code
Message-ID: <1681@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jul-87 17:53:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.1681
Posted: Thu Jul  2 17:53:49 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 11:03:15 EDT
References: <1158@copper.TEK.COM> <6858@auspyr.UUCP> <17171@cca.CCA.COM> <13008@topaz.rutgers.edu> <926@argus.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 24

> In article <13008@topaz.rutgers.edu>, ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes:
> > I have always wondered why people think NULL is more mnemonic than 0.
> > -Ron
> 
> It's not mnemonic, on some machines its just wrong.  NULL is ***NOT***
> defined as zero on all machines.  Therefore the software writen with
> that assumption will not work on such a machine.  More than likely
> the machine will be blamed even though the writer of the software is
> to blame.

Or even the same machine.  For example, if you are compiling in small
model on the 8086 with the Microsoft compiler:

	#define NULL 0
        
but in large model:

	#define NULL 0L
        
Depending on how you are using it, the results may come out the same --
but relying on the compiler to notice that are comparing int and long
(in large model) is a very poor practice.

Clayton E. Cramer