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.