Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:00:40 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: standards/50889: NULL defined as 0 instead of (void *)0 Message-ID: <20030417005708.D6167@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20030416125715.GA12300@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <200304161249.h3GCntqZ071047@freefall.freebsd.org> <20030416125715.GA12300@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030417005708.D6167>