> AFAIK, the behavior of both std::cout << (char*)0
> and printf("%s", NULL) are undefined by C++/C. As
> always, an implementation can provide a definition
> if it chooses to do so, which seems to have been
> done for printf by the compiler(s) in question.Indeed so, I think that's right. Though in this case, Albrecht and I are both using versions of gcc, and the printf implementation seems to be rather more "robust" in this circumstance than the iostream version... SELEX Galileo Ltd Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132 ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
