I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me as to why caddr_t had to
die.  I didn't notice any discussion of it--if there was some, please
point me to the appropriate mailing list.

It seems to have taken a number of people a fair bit of time to pick up
the pieces from the change and it seems possible that some of the fixes
could be wrong.

What's wrong with having a generic pointer type that it's safe to do
byte-wise arithmetic on (which is what I've considered caddr_t to be)?

Thanks,
-allen

-- 
Allen Briggs  |  http://www.ninthwonder.com/~briggs/  |  briggs@ninthwonder.com