«

"Serve La" <> writes:

> C programmers get accused of writing platform dependant code when they write
> int *x = 0;
> They have to write
> int *x = NULL;
> because some platforms don't represent NULL as all bits zero.
>
> C++ programmers don't seem to have this problem, they can write 0 whenever
> they want. Why is that?

Neither do C programmers. The fact that NULL is not represented
as all bits zero is:

1) Not limited to C. This is also true of C++.
2) Not relevant to the initializations you have above.

Where it becomes a problem is more in code such as:

void **foo = calloc(NUM_ELEMS * sizeof *foo);
/* ... Code that assumes that foo[0] through foo[NUM_ELEMS-1]
are NULL pointers due to the all-bits-zero initialization from
calloc()... */

HTH,
Micah

Serve La wrote:

> C programmers get accused of writing
> platform dependant code when they write
> int *x = 0;

The accusers are ignorant.

> They have to write
> int *x = NULL;
> because some platforms don't represent NULL as all bits zero.
>
> C++ programmers don't seem to have this problem,
> they can write 0 whenever they want.

> Why is that?

Your question depends on an invalid hypothesis.

--
pete

"Martin Ambuhl" <> wrote in message
news:_Jhkb.2609$ ink.net...
> > Why is that?
>
> I don't know why your collection of at best half-truths exists. Your post
> is one of the worst attempts at a troll I've ever seen.

Troll!?!? More misinformed than trolling and it was somebody here who said
it BTW.

Here's the worst troll. "Pascal is better than C"

Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
>
> "Scott Fluhrer" <> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mathew Hendry" <> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:39:30 +0200, "Serve La" <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >C programmers get accused of writing platform dependant code when they
> >write
> >> >int *x = 0;
> >> >They have to write
> >> >int *x = NULL;
> >> >because some platforms don't represent NULL as all bits zero.
> >>
> >> The accusers are misinformed. This is a common source of confusion. NULL
> >and
> >> 0 are interchangable with very few exceptions.
> >int i = 0; /* Groovy */
> >int j = NULL; /* An error on some compilers */
> >
> >
>
> Er, seems you're just joking, but anyway: the discussion was about
> 0 vs. NULL in pointer contexts.
>
> int *i = 0; /* valid */
> int *j = NULL; /* more idiomatic variant */
> printf("%p",0); /* undefined behaviour */
>
The variadic printf() requires (void*)0 because the compiler doesn't
parse the format string and doesn't know the context of 0. If the
implementation has defined 'NULL 0' then (void*)NULL will be required.
--
Joe Wright http://www.jw-wright.com
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

"Serve La" <> wrote:

>"Martin Ambuhl" <> wrote in message
>news:_Jhkb.2609$ link.net...
>> > Why is that?
>>
>> I don't know why your collection of at best half-truths exists. Your post
>> is one of the worst attempts at a troll I've ever seen.
>
>Troll!?!? More misinformed than trolling and it was somebody here who said
>it BTW.

If somebody here said so, he has most certainly been corrected.
Or maybe you just misunderstood something.

Regards
--
Irrwahn
()

Joe Wright <> wrote:

>Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
<snip>
>> 0 vs. NULL in pointer contexts.
>>
>> int *i = 0; /* valid */
>> int *j = NULL; /* more idiomatic variant */
>> printf("%p",0); /* undefined behaviour */
>>
>The variadic printf() requires (void*)0 because the compiler doesn't
>parse the format string and doesn't know the context of 0. If the
>implementation has defined 'NULL 0' then (void*)NULL will be required.

That's the point.
--
Irrwahn
()

In article <bmrjb2$nfv$>,
"Serve La" <> wrote:

> C programmers get accused of writing platform dependant code when they write
> int *x = 0;
> They have to write
> int *x = NULL;
> because some platforms don't represent NULL as all bits zero.
>
> C++ programmers don't seem to have this problem, they can write 0 whenever
> they want. Why is that?

That's not a problem of the C language, that is a problem with people
who don't understand it.

Come back when you understand the difference between an integer zero, a
value with a representation of all bits zero, a null pointer, a null
pointer constant and the NULL macro.

Micah Cowan <> writes:
[...]
> Neither do C programmers. The fact that NULL is not represented
> as all bits zero is:
>
> 1) Not limited to C. This is also true of C++.
> 2) Not relevant to the initializations you have above.

To be precise, NULL is not *necessarily* represented as all bits zero.
On many implementations, NULL is represented as all bits zero (which
can make it more difficult to detect bugs caused by code that makes
this assumption).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

In <> Micah Cowan <> writes:

>Neither do C programmers. The fact that NULL is not represented
>as all bits zero is:

NULL is a macro. Its usual representations are 0 or ((void *)0).
If you mean null pointer, NULL is *not* a valid abbreviation.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: