Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!edhall@rand-unix From: edhall%rand-unix@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 Message-ID: <16407@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Feb-84 09:16:00 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16407 Posted: Sat Feb 4 09:16:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 02:40:47 EST Lines: 22 From: Ed_HallBefore another insomniac flames me on it, let me state that my `solution' for the null-pointer argument problem assumes that a constant zero and a pointer otherwise match as arguments (e.g. are the same width). Obviously, this need not be so (such as 16-bit int's and 32-bit pointers, for a common example). Let's cloud the issue more by insisting that all parameters be the same (maximum) width. Such consistancy has other benifits, though there obviously can be an efficiency penalty. All I am trying to do is show that even an admittedly faulty language feature (the inability to declare function parameters apart from the function definition) can be worked around if the compiler designer is willing to go through enough contortions. Happily, it appears that the ANSI standards committee is considering a reasonable means (in my opinion) for declaring function parameter types in an external declaration. -Ed