World: r3wp

No, I simplified the example. I actually wanted to get sizes of structs 
without allocating one

Try with an alias (untested).

Doesn't it get the size of the pointer then?

Let me try...

SIZE? doesn't seem to recognize the alias.

An alias is an abstract definition, it doesn't allocated anything. 
So we can decide that the size of an alias is the whole struct size.

allocated => allocate

Yes, that's what I would like

In the runtime, there's now a new generic pointer type defined:

#define byte-ptr!	c-string!

However, it's type incompatible with the previous definition, which 
NULL still uses:

null: 		pointer [integer!]				;-- null pointer declaration

The documentation specifies a third definition, namely integer!

This comes back to the lack of a void pointer type again

There is a ticket about null: https://github.com/dockimbel/Red/issues/96

Failing that, I think these definitions should use the same type

The new ALLOCATE and FREE use c-string! which makes using them on 
generic byte arrays, and comparisons with NULL, confusing

NULL will be adapted to cop with that (either using polymorphism 
or by replacing it by a NULL? macro).

I find ALLOCATE and FREE using c-string! unintuitive

Other types need to be cast to use these functions

Same as malloc() with C void pointers.

Still, why do we have now have three different definitions of a generic 
pointer?

There is no such thing as a generic pointer in Red/System.

I know, but I #define it as handle! like we talked about before, 
but there's now no way to define handle! in such a way that it works 
everywhere

Have you tried with defining it as integer!?

I once did, but I doubt it will now compensate for c-string! and 
NULL

Integer! is conceptually the closest type to handle!.

Yes, so why not define NULL and byte-ptr! as integer?

About NULL, please read the ticket on github I have posted above. 
NULL will be changed.

Sure, but why not fix this inconvenience right now?

I don't care what handle! is, just that there are three incompatible 
definitions

Because I currently work on another ticket.

It's just changing the two lines I cited above

I don't mean right now right now, I mean before making NULL polymorphic

The NULL changes will be done this weekend, you won't have to wait 
too long.

That still leaves the incompatibility between byte-ptr! and the documentation

byte-ptr! as integer?: certainly not, byte-ptr! as it names implies 
is a byte! pointer, so semantically different than just integer!.

But you're saying all the time that a void pointer is conceptually 
closest to an integer?

Right.

You should erase the "void pointer" expression from your mind, it 
is corrupting your vision. :-)

Again, I don't care much what it is (although I wouldn't expect ALLOCATE 
to return a c-string!), just that the definitions are compatible, 
so you don't have to insert confusing typecasts everywhere

I'm just following what you have written in the manual about pointers

the definitions are compatible
: which ones?

NULL, byte-ptr! and the manual use three type incompatible definitions. 
I must compare and pass these types

NULL and documentation will be fixed during this weekend.

So will they be compatible with byte-ptr! thereafter?

NULL should work with any kind of pointer/struct or be removed.

I haven't decided yet on the right solution, but you can safely use 
ALLOCATE as it is defined right now, that won't be changed.

Not really, because casts are needed on every use of ALLOCATE and 
FREE

That would be the case whatever type you would put in the return 
definition of ALLOCATE?