Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!texbell!killer!convex!texsun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!munnari!otc!metro!pta!teti!nswitgould!ausonics!greyham
From: greyham@ausonics.OZ (Greyham Stoney)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Software Distribution
Message-ID: <44@ausonics.OZ>
Date: 11 Oct 88 05:58:08 GMT
References: <993@esunix.UUCP>
Organization: Ausonics Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
Lines: 17

in article <993@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) says:
> 
> Since NULL can be stored in a pointer, the actions of all pointer
> operators when applied to NULL should, in my opinion, be defined.

Hey.... this NULL pointer business is crazy; obviously (*NULL) is undefined -
how could anyone use it? (No, I'm not saying you support it....). But if ALL
actions when applied to the null pointer are to be defined, how about:
(*(NULL+1))? or (*(NULL+any_old_number)). No way; it's totally machine
dependant.

	Greyham

Vote *NO* to NULL pointer references!
-- 
# Greyham Stoney:      (disclaimer not necessary: I'm obviously irresponsible)
# greyham@ausonics.oz - Ausonics Pty Ltd, Lane Cove. (* Official Sponsor *)