nazgul@alphalpha.COM (Kee Hinckley) (09/02/90)
Wouldn't a void * make more sense and avoid a lot of casting? Or was the feeling that since some compilers don't support void it was better to force everyone to cast and thus make the code compatible? -kee
moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) (09/03/90)
nazgul@alphalpha.COM (Kee Hinckley) writes: >Wouldn't a void * make more sense and avoid a lot of casting? Or was >the feeling that since some compilers don't support void it was better >to force everyone to cast and thus make the code compatible? Worse, many pcc-based compilers will get badly confused by void *foo (they see the declaration but don't recognize it as a pointer variable, producing a "foo not declared" later when foo is used) -- eg. Ultrix3.x (Vax) cc and MIPS 1.31 compilers. Very confusing error message when you encounter it the first time.