On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Jimmy Johnson <boxer...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- In c-prog@yahoogroups.com, Paul Herring <pauljherr...@...> wrote: >> >> >> > What should it be. And I hope you don't say >> > p = 0; >> >> Why not? It means _exactly_ the same thing in most contexts in both C and >> C++. >> > > Because I don't think of a pointer as a boolean, no matter the context.
Then you *really* need to rethink what NULL is. It is exactly *that*(a boolean) in a pointer context. If it's NULL, it's invalid, if it's not NULL, it's valid. It's a boolean for a pointer. If NULL isn't the opposite of what '1' happens to be the opposite of, what exactly do you think it is? I'd really like an answer from *you*, because in most of my (working - i.e. writing code for a live business) code, I use 0 rather than NULL. Why is 0 an unacceptable substitute to NULL, given what you've learnt/been taught/what you've seen? I'd like the reasoning. Honestly... -- PJH http://shabbleland.myminicity.com/env http://www.chavgangs.com/register.php?referer=9375
