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.