On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Scott Ribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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?
As I understand it, yes (because, on platforms on which a null pointer is not all-bits-zero, people wanted to convert that pointer to the equivalent integer value).. > So the error is in the editing--the stray "except as previously > specified" was accidentally left in referring to nothing? The "except as previously specified" in 6.3.2.3 5 refers back to 6.3.2.3 3. Without the "except as previously specified", 6.3.2.3 5 would directly contradict 6.3.2.3 3 (i.e. it would render the conversion from a null pointer constant to a null pointer undefined). >> 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 ;-) Indeed :) -- Clark S. Cox III [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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]
