Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: CASE mis-understanding?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:36:16 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <op.xb00eqip5zc71u@localhost>
References: <52e54d17.461102185@news.demon.co.uk> <op.xbylp0b95zc71u@localhost> <53107156$0$25040$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> <op.xb0f742c5zc71u@localhost> <53113d1b$0$25040$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:28838

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:51:23 -0500, Albert van der Horst  
<albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> You are deluded. A proper implementation of C requires that
> the sentinel value that represents a NULL value does not
> point to an accessible region of memory.
>

Earlier you used "proper, high quality implementation."  It
was clear in that context that it was your personal perspective.
Is "proper" as used here still your personal definition of proper,
or do you mean it's the C specification's definition of proper? ...

I'm curious as to why you believe the "sentinel value that
represents a NULL value" must not "point to accessible memory"
when it's sufficient in C for NULL to simply not point to any valid
C objects.  *Why* must the memory be _inaccessible_?  Clearly, that's
not possible on most hardware, but I'll ignore that for discussion.
Clearly, many C compilers do allow access there, but I'll ignore
that for discussion too.


Rod Pemberton