From: Caolan McNamara (cmc at domain stardivision.de)
Date: Thu 11 May 2000 - 11:47:24 IST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 11.05.00, 11:11:08, Kenn Humborg <kenn at domain linux.ie> wrote regarding Re:
[ILUG] memsetting and null pointers:
> So those machines wouldn't support C++ then. The C++ standard now
> specifies that NULL is 0, not (void *)0.
On its own that change does not make a difference, defining NULL as 0
rather than (void *)0 does not change the underlying concept that a 0 in
the context of pointers stands for a null value, which may be implemented
under the hood as a non 0 bitpattern. NULL is 0 in C as well, its just
that its got the cast hanging off it to get past typing issues, syntatic
sugar which is out of date with C++. So memsetting a sequence of pointers
to 0 would still be in the realms of slightly dodgy with c++ as well. But
like I said its obscure and I sure as hell don't stay up at nights
worrying about it
But despite it all I kinda like C and C++, despite the permanent beating
they inflict on me.
C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:06 GMT