Re: i guess we're frozen & stuff

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:

> However, they're testing for a POSIX 2008 requirement that C99 and
> POSIX 2004 implementations need not meet, namely that NULL be of type
> "void *" instead of any null pointer constant (e.g., "0").  I think
> requiring POSIX 2008 support for Guile and anything that builds on it
> seems like a bad idea.  I haven't looked at the libunistring code to
> see why it might be relevant, but it seems like a pretty gratuitous
> imposition to me.  The only benefit of it I can see is that a variadic
> function can then take NULL as an argument without casting to char*;
> is that worth refusing to support other systems?

I didn't know it was a POSIX 2008 requirement.  Then indeed, we should
discuss this with the libunistring folks.

Thanks,
Ludo'.