Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!vax135!cjp
From: cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Manx C and ptr comparisons
Message-ID: <1843@vax135.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Aug-87 18:11:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax135.1843
Posted: Fri Aug  7 18:11:47 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 06:50:24 EDT
References: <4540@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1836@vax135.UUCP> <4595@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <3199@zen.berkeley.edu> <4613@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 26

In article <4613@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>This seems to be something that C compiler writers don't seem to be
>able to get right - especially on the eighty-eightysux family. So
>not getting it right doesn't qualify as a major flaw.
>
>Continuing to defend it as correct in the face of clear evidence to
>the contrary is a major flaw....

Fine, I'm content to consider Manx's failure to notice the requisite
special case of pointer compared to 0, as a minor flaw.  One that is
largely fixed by redefining NULL in the Manx include file.  Of course
code that makes explicit comparison to 0 rather than NULL will still
lose, but that's no big deal, just edit those 0's to NULLs.

Gee whiz, I try to give a helpful bug fix and people start complaining
all the harder about the bug I just fixed.  I didn't make any sweeping
statement about C standards, just noted an obvious fixup for Manx
users.  It needn't even touch the source code, just an include, so
what's the beef with respect to standards?  Take it for what it's
worth, if you don't need it you can ignore it.  Can we please drop the
C standards debate from the Amiga group?  Thanks.

-- 
	Charles Poirier   (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp

   "Docking complete...       Docking complete...       Docking complete..."