🚀 go-pugleaf

Denizen of the Deep wrote:
> >Denizen of the Deep (becker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> >|> If the type (void *) is not compatible with pointer-to-function
> >|> types, then why is the expression (void *)0 a legal null
> >|> pointer constant?
> >|> Since the null pointer constant is assignable to a pointer-to-
> >|> function, it seems that this is rather misleading.
> 
> ... I understand that calling 0 a null pointer constant is
> just a special case.  My point is not to ask "why should (void *)0 fit
> in the type system?"  As you point out, the standard just declares it
> by fiat.  My point is to ask "Isn't this misleading?"


Questions concerning the human-factors aspect of the language C
don't get much attention here (I don't know if that's appropriate
or not).   If something is considered "misleading" by some, that's
less important than if something is found rigorously ambiguous, given
the text of the Standard.    

I suppose it's kind of like arguing about why the spelling
rules, and exceptions of a natural language like English are not
rational...it just goes nowhere, as no one can change it.  It's
enough to list it as an exception, and pray that the list of such
exceptions is a small one.