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 )