Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: 'void *' (was Re: malloc() prob. on 3.4a)
Message-ID: <8804182308.AA21353@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 18 Apr 88 23:08:32 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 31

:Matt Dillon writes:
:>	...  But what happens when you use AllocMem() to allocate
:>	a structure, then an array of something, then some other
:>	structure, etc....?  void * gets to be *real* useful and makes
:>	code a lot easier to understand.
:
:That's when you use a cast.  You can't simply pretend all pointers are
:`void *'.  It's just not right.  And what happens when someone tries
:to compile your code with a compiler that doesn't handle `void *'?

	Damn It! It's just not right! It makes little sense to declare
	AllocMem() as returning char * when you know it doesn't!  Which
	is worse?  Saying a function returns something it doesn't and
	using casts, or saying a function can return several (pointer)
	types ala void * and not use casts?

	What happens when someone tries to compile my code with a 
	compiler that doesn't handle enumerations?

	What happens when someone tries to compile my code with a
	compiler that doesn't handle structure assignments?

	What happens when someone tries to compile my code with a
	compiler that doesn't handle structure return values?

	What happens when someone tries to compile my code with a
	compiler that doesn't understand what a signed char is?

	...	Get the point? 

				-Matt