Thiago Macieira wrote: I missed this message.
> "The macro NULL is an implementation-defined C++ null pointer constant in this > International Standard(180)" > > And the note reads > > "180)Possible definitions include 0 and 0L, but not (void*)0." Does the note say why or is it just an arbitrary decision? 0 and 0L do not look like pointer constants for someone coming from C, whereas (void*)0 does. I thought void* was the generic pointer even in C++ (at least the "more traditional" implementations)? R _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
