Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!cvl!elsie!ado
From: ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: More ANSI comment help wanted:  #define void int vs. #define void char
Message-ID: <8085@elsie.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 88 22:04:17 GMT
Organization: NIH-LEC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 28

Here's another "help wanted on a comment to X3J11" request.  One of the
comments I sent in during the second public review period ran along these lines:

	Rationale, Sectioin 3.8.3, Page 64

	Description:
		Contains a sample keyword redefinition:
			#define void int
		along with a note that "The redefinitions of void and const
		could be useful in retrofitting more modern C code to an older
		implementation."

		Since the Standard requires a void * to have the same
		representation as a char *, and since a char * may not have the
		same representation as an int *, this definition seems
		suboptimal.

	Proposed Change:
		Change the above line to read
			#define void char

The response I received (was marked "Not an official X3J11 document"),
said that while "#define void char" might be better when it comes to pointers,
there were other cases where "#define void int" was better.  Can anyone give a
concrete example?
-- 
		Market swaps ends for Chinese native.  (5)
	ado@ncifcrf.gov			ADO is a trademark of Ampex.