🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ig2df$g9v@solutions.solon.com> ANH@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU  writes:

>
>Just a deep mistrust against 'standard conforming' compilers.
>
>Anh
>
>In article <4iekg0$9os@solutions.solon.com>, yang@math.umass.edu (Huayong Yang)
> writes:
> > ANH@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU writes:
> > [...]
> > : But here is one simple rule,  always use (Type*)0 and not null for null 
> > : pointer check.  Show my a thousand standards that say I don't need 
> > : to do that, I would still use the construct.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate on this?

If the compiler gets something trivial like this wrong it is going to kick
you in other areas (I assume that by 'check' you mean comparison i.e. a 
context where the type required is unambiguous). If you're that mistrustful
of C compilers I suggest you change languages! The C language has always
made pointer comparison against 0 well defined so even a non-ANSI compiler
should get this right.

(Since others have remarked on a lack of references in my postings to
comp.lang.c.moderated, which results in lack of threading, I'm trying this
as a normal posting. In the past this hasn't worked too well here for
moderated newsgroups hence I've been mailing my postings which fails to
generate references).

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------