Re: coding standards

Christopher R. Hertel (crh@NTS.Umn.EDU)
Sat, 9 May 1998 21:18:39 -0500 (CDT)

From:	"Christopher R. Hertel" <crh@NTS.Umn.EDU>
Message-Id: <199805100218.VAA29295@unet.unet.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: coding standards
To:	lkcl@switchboard.net (Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton)
Date:	Sat, 9 May 1998 21:18:39 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.980509141301.6313D-100000@cb1-gw.cb1.com> from "Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton" at May 9, 98 02:14:44 pm

>
> > As Andrew pointed out to me, the C standard does define NULL as a pointer
> > with a value of zero. void *ptr = 0 isn't wrong, per se., it's just that
> > it's much clearer to use NULL.
>
> > #define NULL ((void*)0)
>
> the atari lattice c compiler used to crash because of this (quite normal)
> #define. i vaguely recall assigning an int (which defaulted to 16 bit on
> a 68000 processor) to NULL which caused the compiler-crash: i was used to
> decent compilers that define int to be 32 bit :-) :-)
>

Well, assigning NULL to an int...

Still, by using NULL, you should be guarunteed the correct data type for
*pointers*.

-- 
Christopher R. Hertel -)-----                   University of Minnesota
crh@nts.umn.edu              Networking and Telecommunications Services