time(0L) - history of a misconception (was Re: SCO password generator)

[Conor P. Cahill]

lothar at tmcsys.UUCP (L. Hirschbiegel) writes:

>This was posted to newsgroup "comp.UNIX.SYSV386", right??

NO.  It was cross-posted to comp.unix.sysv386 AND comp.lang.c

>Martin was referring to a "time" syscall argument mismatch under SCO-UNIX.

Martin was saying that it was incorrect useage to call time(0L) period.

>I pointed out, that it really makes no difference for the argument value itself.
>I did NOT say this is a general rule-of-thumb for all kinds of cpus
>and all kinds of compilers?!?!

You did not say "it makes on difference under SCO UNIX".   You said it makes
no difference.  Either way (on SCO UNIX or not) it is incorrect to code 
time(0L) as opposed to time((long*)0).

>Before you answer in a newsgroup make sure you realise what that newsgroup
>is about.

Learn how to read headers.

-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170