From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-5638-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.auc.dk>
Received: (qmail 21573 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1999 10:36:09 -0000
Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Mar 1999 10:36:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 17403 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 1999 10:35:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 5638
Received: (qmail 17395 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1999 10:35:47 -0000
Sender: B.Stephens@isode.com
To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk
Subject: Re: 0 vs. NULL (RE: Worrisome warnings after recent patches)
References: <000901be6619$6f8a6930$21c9ca95@mowp.siemens.ru> <36DE478C.2F17DA58@uni-hamburg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Bruce Stephens <B.Stephens@isode.com>
Date: 04 Mar 1999 10:35:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: Bernd Eggink's message of "Thu, 04 Mar 1999 09:42:52 +0100"
Message-ID: <vbhfs1v8yj.fsf@snake.isode.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070079 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.79) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald)

Bernd Eggink <eggink@uni-hamburg.de> writes:

> Andrej Borsenkow wrote:

> > What is the point of using NULL to initialize null pointer. The only
> > portable and official way is to use `0'(zero), that is garanteed to be
> > converted to whatever representation null pointer has on a given system.
> 
> No, this applies to C++ only, not to C. In C you should use the NULL
> macro or (void*)0.

There's an issue with arguments to functions which don't have
prototypes, but apart from that, the literal 0 as a pointer should be
fine in C.