Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!uvaarpa!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: (char *) and (void *) Message-ID: <455@xyzzy.UUCP> Date: 16 Dec 87 21:43:00 GMT References: <6829@brl-smoke.ARPA> Organization: Data General, RTP NC. Lines: 23 > gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) > Pointers to the same object are now guaranteed to compare equal. > All types of null pointer compare equal. (char *) and (void *) > have the same representation. What was the rationale for restricting implementors in this way? It seems a totally useless restriction, and has potentially cripling effect on debugging-enhanced implementations. A better refinement of pointer format would be to require that the size of an object of pointer-to-structure type must be knowable without knowing the contents of the structure. (This may be implied by other rules, but I didn't see this clearly spelled out anywhere. On the other hand, this restriction may NOT be implied, and may not even be wanted. Comments?) -- I cain't git a long little doggie, I cain't even git one that's small... I cain't git a long little doggie, I cain't git a doggie ay-tall. --- Yosemite Sam -- Wayne Throop!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw