Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!rtech!llama!jas
From: jas@llama.rtech.UUCP (Jim Shankland)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Possible extension to C??
Message-ID: <1561@rtech.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 88 02:36:43 GMT
References: <3306@ihlpf.ATT.COM> <7010@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Sender: news@rtech.UUCP
Reply-To: jas@llama.UUCP (Jim Shankland)
Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA
Lines: 20

In article <7010@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>In article <3306@ihlpf.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704A-Liber,N.) writes:
>>I feel that *0 should be equal to 0 (at least for the data types char, short,
>>int, long and 'pointer').
>
>I think this is totally unworkable.... [Followed by several reasoned
>arguments.]

I agree completely, except that I would say something less charitable
than "totally unworkable."  Code that dereferences 0 is buggy.  If I
write such buggy code, I want to hear about it immediately by getting
an access violation when I do the dereference.  I DON'T want my application
to continue running, possibly doing horrible things, because the language
implementor tried to do me a favor by covering up my bug.


Jim Shankland
 ..!ihnp4!cpsc6a!\
              sun!rtech!jas
.!ucbvax!mtxinu!/