Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site ttds.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!philabs!mcvax!enea!ttds!dan From: dan@ttds.UUCP (Dan Sahlin) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: Please use NULL instead of 0 whenever you have a pointer! Message-ID: <164@ttds.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 19:18:50 EST Article-I.D.: ttds.164 Posted: Wed Feb 8 19:18:50 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 03:27:40 EST References: <16022@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: Royal Inst. of Techn., Stockholm Lines: 15 Since I started this NULL vs. 0 discussion, I perhaps should repeat my reasons for wanting people use to NULL instead of 0. + 0 is 16 bits on my machine. + NULL is declared as (char *)0 on my machine which makes 32 bits. + Programs that use 0 as pointer *crash*. + Programs that use NULL *don't crash*. The reasons (although very obvious) have been very well elaborated earlier so I will not repeat them. While hoping to end this NULL discussion soon, I still have a question: Is there really a C-compiler that makes a difference between a "(char *)0" and "(int *)0" so a program can *crash* if it uses the wrong one? Dan Sahlin ( ..mcvax!enea!ttds!dan )