slightly OT: error handling conventions

[Micah Cowan]

What about all the other null pointer constants, like 0L, (1 - 1L),
(void *)(sizeof(int) - sizeof(unsigned)) and so on? ;-)

Yes, I know I was oversimplifying: it'd have been more accurate
to say "groups of null pointer constants", perhaps...

Damn, guess I shoulda known someone'd call me on that.

 

[Dan Pop]

Yes, I know I was oversimplifying: it'd have been more accurate
to say "groups of null pointer constants", perhaps...

Much simpler: write "*another*" instead of "the *other*".

Dan

 

[Micah Cowan]

Much simpler: write "*another*" instead of "the *other*".

Quite right: but I had meant to point out the two categories
under which a null pointer constant can fall (according to the
Standard), and was simply damned lazy about it.

 

[Sudheer Reddy Vakati]

That's interesting, because I find it quite intuitive, and I suppose I just
assumed that other people do too.

Yes, the idea is very intuitive and also attractive. As far as the
understandability of the runlevel code given by Ian, i was able to
understand it at first go. If i am able to understand it at first go i
dont see why i shouldn't use the idea presented by Ian even though it
contains a goto.

VSR