Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:03:03 -0500 From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> Cc: mark@grondar.org Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time Message-ID: <20040301150303.GA72625@crodrigues.org> In-Reply-To: <200403011315.i21DFvC95798@lakes.dignus.com> References: <200402291546.i1TFkZ0w070591@grimreaper.grondar.org> <200403011315.i21DFvC95798@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 08:15:57AM -0500, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > But - I believe (and I need to check on this) that the C++ > standard requires the NULL constant to be a pointer type (so > various conversions work.) This is from the C++ standard: 18.1 Types 4 The macro NULL is an implementation defined C++ null pointer constant in this International Standard (4.10). 180) 180) Possible definitions include 0 and 0L, but not (void*)0. -- Craig Rodrigues http://crodrigues.org rodrigc@crodrigues.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040301150303.GA72625>