From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 16 08:00:56 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 354E537B404; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9369943F3F; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA30383;
	Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:00:42 +1000
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:00:40 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
In-Reply-To: <20030416125715.GA12300@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
Message-ID: <20030417005708.D6167@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <200304161249.h3GCntqZ071047@freefall.freebsd.org>
 <20030416125715.GA12300@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: lamer@properfucked.net
cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
cc: Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: standards/50889: NULL defined as 0 instead of (void *)0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Standards compliance <freebsd-standards.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-standards>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-standards@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:00:56 -0000

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Erik Trulsson wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 05:49:55AM -0700, Jens Schweikhardt wrote:
> > I agree, though, that it may be desirable to
> > #define NULL ((void*)0)
>
> Unless you want to use the same definition for both C and C++.
> In C++ the only valid way of defining NULL is
>
> #define NULL 0
>
> because in C++ there is no automatic conversion between "pointer to
> void" and other pointer types as there is in C.

I agree.  It may be, and is, also desireable to define NULL as 0.
A bit more desireable IMO.  Whichever detects the most bugs at compile
time is best.

Bruce