Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="rihad, post: 1683680"] Not *exactly*. ((void *) 0) is a common way to represent 0 - the null pointer constant - behind the NULL macro. On such systems use of NULL can be convenient - buggy assignments of NULL to non-pointer types will be flagged out early. But what NULL expands to is entirely implementation-defined, it can be 0, too (especially on dual C/C++ systems). That's why I chose to not rely on NULL at all and use 0 exclusively. It's a tiny bit more extendible too, since 0 is a good rv for just about anything (and passes as a reasonably good initializer to even aggregate types). [/QUOTE]