From: steveo@eircom.net   
      
   On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:57:57 +0100   
   John Aldridge  wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   	That rings vague bells, what was it ?   
      
   --   
   Steve O'Hara-Smith   
   Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/   
   For forms of government let fools contest   
   Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)