>The C/C++ standards define NULL such that the onus is left to the >implementation to define NULL as something that "works".
That may be true. However, the C++ standard, such as it is, is quite specific about what it means to assign an integral value of zero to a pointer lvalue, or when testing a pointer value against an integer value of zero. This is precisely why many C++ programmers, myself included, prefer to use 0 rather than NULL. NULL may or may not be the right thing, whereas 0 almost certainly is. >Therefore, unless you plan on stating that "our tools only work on >'sensible' systems", for your own definition of sensible, "NULL" actually >is more portable than "0". (perhaps not by very much at all... Its the other way around. The standards do not pin down a definition of NULL because there is no standard definition that can be guaranteed to work. Thus, using 0 is actually much more portable because its operation/semantics are defined by the standard. Actually, as Joseph pointed out here yesterday, even 0 has problems for cases where there is an overloaded function with both pointer and integer variants. > but is it >really worth fighting over?) No. Just worth getting right. --p _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
