🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4728@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@nevin.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
> 1.  I am not responsible for bad/typical/good design of compilers.
> 2.  I am not responsible for your incorrect use of the semantics
> of function calls.
> 3.  I do, however, feel responsible for your education and
> edification as long as you are part of my community,

I'm not responsible for that code. I know it's wrong. It is, however,
something that I have to fix over and over and over again because one
of your co-workers at intel decided to use a bondage-and-discipline
definition of NULL in <stdio.h>. Technically correct, but practically
a problem.

I have better things to do with my time than fixing all the broken
software in comp.sources. If I can get it working by futzing around
in a defs.h file instead of groveling through the source to elm (a
particularly poorly written example), I will.

And: on an intel 80x86 (x<3) the best definition for NULL is (void *)0.

Period.
-- 
Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180;
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;         `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"