Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ukma!uflorida!haven!ncifcrf!nlm-mcs!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: pointers, tests, casts
Message-ID: <9025@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 1 Dec 88 17:57:09 GMT
References: <11130@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <8961@smoke.BRL.MIL> <12690@steinmetz.ge.com> <226@twwells.uucp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) )
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 6

In article <226@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>Otherwise, there are are implementations, those defining NULL as
>(char *)0, which will give an error on the latter statement.

The only valid definitions for NULL are 0 and ((void*)0).
As you say, implementations exist that do this wrong.