Quoting Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Could you explain again why you don't want char* anywhere, and > prefer > > void*? > > Because for character data we're not sure char * is right. (Might be > wchar_t, __int16, __int32, or something else) It's also to shake off the > > "Oh, it's character data! I can use the <string.h> functions!" > reaction. That makes sense. But, why not a type named parrotchar (or similar) (which may end up resolving to void)? It just seems like the use of the explicit 'void' type may trip us up later, and we might as well use as much of the typing capabilities of C as we can. -R
