Abandon NULL for (0)

[Paul Tomblin]

In article <19999 at mimsy.UUCP> chris at mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>One is supposed to write monstrosities like
>
>	void (*signal(int, void (*)(int)))(int);
>
For some strange reason, our VMS C compiler has the following in signal.h:

int (*signal (int sig, void (*func)(int, ...)) ) (int, ...);

which seems slightly contradictory.  Since our code doesn't use prototypes
yet, or signals in the VMS code,  I haven't been able to investigate whether
this is going to cause some sort of compiler warning every time the code
trys to capture the old signal handler, set up a new one, and restore the
old one after the signal has been handled.

Someone care to comment on why Dec did it this way, and if they are planning
to fix it later?
-- 
Paul Tomblin,  Feeping Creaturism Section, DeptRedncyDept | ADA was invented 
    UUCP:   nrcaer!cognos!geovision!pt ??                 | because  Vogon 
    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here aren't        | Poetry wasn't
    necessarily even mine!                                | deadly enough.