Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why NULL is 0
Message-ID: <7486@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 20 Mar 88 02:56:24 GMT
References: <2550049@hpisod2.HP.COM> <7412@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3351@chinet.UUCP> <10574@mimsy.UUCP> <10576@mimsy.UUCP> <636@acer.stl.stc.co.uk> <25652@cca.CCA.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 6

In article <25652@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>I don't know if this is what ANSI C expects, but it's not too hot if
>it is, because we now have two descriptions of the calling sequence.

Yes, but since a diagnostic is required for such a declaration mismatch,
you get the opportunity to fix it before it's actually used.