Re: definition of NULL correct?

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 07:57:14PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
 > I asked fairly good C language lawyer I'm acquainted with (Peter
 > Seebach) about this.  He says that "there's nothing saying "sizeof
 > NULL" has to work".

Why not, given that "sizeof 10" works, and NULL is ultimately supposed
to be just another constant expression? Unless there's a specific
escape hatch for null pointer constants, it ought to at least be
syntactically valid.

Whether the value it generates is useful is a different matter... :-)

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost