> It is an intentional omission (I have had this argument before on > comp.lang.c, except I was arguing your side at the time, and was set > straight).
So, to be clear, there was at one time debate over whether null -> integer yields 0 should be in the standard, and in the end that was intentionally omitted? So the error is in the editing--the stray "except as previously specified" was accidentally left in referring to nothing? > Of course, this is, for the most part, all academic, as any platforms > on which Cocoa (or OpenStep APIs) exist all convert a null pointer to > zero and vice-versa. Yes. And the general evolution of things has been away from segmented/exotic addressing schemes to flat memory addressing. For good reasons, too ;-) -- Scott Ribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.killerbytes.com/ (303) 722-0567 voice _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
