how has C bitten you? (Really,

[darryl at ISM780.UUCP]

>> Although this does not seal it up completely, it seems that K&R had it in
>> mind that putting pointers into integers (and taking them back again) would
>> have no overhead....
>
>True, but there is a subtle point here:  they say you can convert pointers
>to (sufficiently large) integers, they may say that you can convert the
>result back, but they don't say what the integer will look like.

Henry, you and I are NOT arguing;  I agree that the implicit conversion of
0 to a null pointer only happens for constant 0s.  Perhaps I was less than
completely clear, but I wanted to be sure (hah!) that the netters would
understand that 0 and an int variable containing the value 0 are (may be)
treated differently here.

	    --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.
	    ...!cca!ima!ism780!darryl
	    The views expressed above are my opinions only.