There's more than one way to do things | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Umm, no, actually I was thinking of K&R C. In "The C Programming Language (Second edition)" (I haven't the first handy) it says: The symbolic constant NULL is often used in place of zero, as a mnemonic to indicate more clearly that this is a special value for a pointer. It was variations on (void*)0 that I was alluding to as being a cause of grief in some rare cases (none of which I can think of at the moment, and probably all in a C++ context in any case). Actually NULL is not defined by C++ either, athough in "The C++ Programming Language (Third Edition)" Stroustrup comments: Because of C++'s tighter type checking, the use of plain 0, rather than any suggested NULL macro, leads to fewer problems. then goes on to suggest: If you feel you must define NULL, use: const int NULL = 0; None of which is relevant to very much, except to help highlight how little of the what people think of as C is in fact part of the C language. DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel In reply to Re^4: Check Variables for NULL
by GrandFather
|
|