From: jpsa@cantab.net   
      
   In article <20240829102839.5bb67af25e568ebabc65ede6@eircom.net>,   
   steveo@eircom.net says...   
   >   
   > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:32:49 +0100   
   > Richard Kettlewell  wrote:   
   >   
   > > I don?t think I?d fault either decision though the fact that we?ve ended   
   > > up with two conventions does make writing/maintaining portable code a   
   > > bit more annoying,   
   >   
   > 	Portable code should only rely on the standards not   
   > implementations, some very weird possibilities are legal within the   
   > standard.   
      
   Heh, yes. I worked for several years on a machine where a null pointer   
   wasn't all bits zero, and where char* was a different size to any other   
   pointer.   
      
   --   
   John   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)