Jim,
I read about the initialization rules and i agree with them. Thanks for
fixing it so quickly.
Gokul.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Jim Idle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:54:51 -0800
>
> "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Assigning it to 0, will again cause trouble for C++ folks.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No it won't, because 0 is a valid (indeed, the preferred) way of writing
>> a null pointer constant in C++.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you misunderstood me. I said assigning 0 to a enum in C++ will
>> throw a compiler error.
>>
>
> I didn't though :). See email about new initialization rules. I think that
> they are much mire in keeping with C and C++. More generally it makes the
> grammar programmer responsible for behaviour, which is in line with the rest
> of the C stuff.
>
> David's point about C++ is correct though 0 == NULL is guranteed in ANSI C,
> evenbthough rhe compiler must work it out. Better to use NULL consistently
> and try to avoid adding to the billion dollars.
>
> Jim
>
>>
>> Gokul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"il-antlr-interest" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
