Hi, I'm in favor of getting rid of PETSC_NULL. We will otherwise always have to torture users sending patches.
As a side note, there are also uses of my_ptr = (void*)0; which are not included in the 272 occurrences. Am I correct to assume that the rhs should be replaced with NULL in these cases? Best regards, Karli On 02/06/2013 07:35 PM, Barry Smith wrote: > > In 1994 NULL was a pain because for different systems it was in different > include files and sometimes you had to do very nasty stuff like > > #if !defined(NULL) > #define NULL 0 > > This is why PETSC_NULL came into existence. > > Is the world a different place now? Based on the fact there are numerous (272 > to be exact thanks to Karl) uses of NULL in PETSc today and they seem to > cause absolutely no grief? (Except to Barry's tidy little mind) it seems > PETSC_NULL is not needed any longer? > > If this is the case I propose we eradicate PETSC_NULL replacing it > everywhere with NULL. > > Ok? > > Barry >
