Null revisited (briefly)

[Rahul Dhesi]

In article <1095 at auspex.UUCP> guy at auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
>Wrong.  '\0' *is* the same as 0.

Isn't it possible to postulate the existence of a bizarre 1's
complement machine in which the lexical analyzer produces
binary 00000000000000000000000000000000 when it sees the
character 0, but 11111111111111111111111111111111 when it
sees the sequence '\0'?
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
                    ARPA:  dhesi at bsu-cs.bsu.edu