Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!mailrus!wasatch!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet
From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Software Distribution
Message-ID: <1019@esunix.UUCP>
Date: 19 Oct 88 14:31:49 GMT
References: <44@ausonics.OZ>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah
Lines: 31

From article <44@ausonics.OZ>, by greyham@ausonics.OZ (Greyham Stoney):
- 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.

The idea was to define all of these to be runtime exceptions. Not to
make them meaningful. *NULL is about as meaningful as x/0, and both
should, in my opinion, cause an exception.

- 
- 	Greyham
- 
- Vote *NO* to NULL pointer references!

Absolutely!

- -- 
- # Greyham Stoney:      (disclaimer not necessary: I'm obviously irresponsible)
- # greyham@ausonics.oz - Ausonics Pty Ltd, Lane Cove. (* Official Sponsor *)

-- 
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
An average hammer is better for driving nails than a superior wrench.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
UUCP Address:  decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet