--- Thomas Reitelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd suggest to use "NULL" instead of "0" because it is less > confusing. > I don't know any system where NULL != 0 so it should not make any > difference > (in a technical view).
There are obscure systems (very obscure) where NULL != 0x0000 but C and C++ define 0 to be equivalent to NULL as far as pointers are concerned so it is up to the compiler to handle it properly. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Licq-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/licq-devel
