Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dalcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!dartvax!dalcs!holmes From: holmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 Message-ID: <464@dalcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Feb-84 01:16:34 EST Article-I.D.: dalcs.464 Posted: Thu Feb 2 01:16:34 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 01:43:14 EST References: <126@exodus.UUCP> Organization: Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S. Lines: 8 The problem here is with the C `bible' and with the C compilers. NULL should NOT be defined in the `stdio.h' package as this assumes (de facto) that there is a common interpretation. If a generic NULL is to be recognized it *has* to be done by the compiler, NOT the preprocessor. Only the compiler has the info (if it does) to correctly interpret the `current' meaning of NULL. The idea that NULL could be something simple, like 0, doesn't work as we have seen over the weeks. If there is to be a generic NULL pointer it MUST be known to the compiler.