ckl@uwbln.UUCP (Christoph Kuenkel) (10/24/89)
In article <11333@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article i wrote: > >> [gwyn, 0->.., garbage, no type, ...] > >for me, ((thing *)0) sounds quite reasonable. ... > > Why is it that people keep citing one thing then reading it as something > else? > ((thing *)0) is of course JUST FINE. How about reading what I SAID. oops! sorry! i have to apologize. of course i should have written ``((thing *) 0)->member sounds quite reasonable''. as you probably know, i am a friend of ``((thing *) 0)'' as opposed to NULL :-) if i'd really meant ``((thing *) 0)'' i would not have written > [..........................................]. i agree that there is no > meaningfull evaluation. [...] my point was, that the standards point of view doesnt seem intuitiv to me so that i would appreciate you to explain *why* it should be obvious to a good c programmer (or even to me :-) instead of just arguing that the standard says so. christoph ps: hu, pretty much emotions, cause of a null pointer... -- # include <std/disclaimer.h> Christoph Kuenkel/UniWare GmbH Kantstr. 152, 1000 Berlin 12, West Germany ck@tub.BITNET ckl@uwbln {unido,tmpmbx,tub}!uwbln!ckl
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/25/89)
In article <1909@uwbull.uwbln.UUCP> ckl@uwbln.UUCP (Christoph Kuenkel) writes: >my point was, that the standards point of view doesnt seem intuitiv to me >so that i would appreciate you to explain *why* it should be obvious to a >good c programmer (or even to me :-) instead of just arguing that the >standard says so. Well, I did start out calling it "garbage", which is how I as a programmer actually think about it while writing code. This later evolved into "meaningless", because some folks showed an affinity for garbage.