From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-05 12:36:09
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:56:39 +0200
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Not in the sense you probably mean (I know of people who use my code
> on 64-bit platforms though). I've never followed Stroustrup's advice
> to use "0", because I had a (slight) hope that I could grep for "NULL"
> some day in the future and replace it with something better: this is
> from an old post of mine on c.l.c++.m (the message is very long, so
> I'll directly quote the relevant part here)
We started using it long ago when using NULL caused compiler errors in
some situations with certain compilers. Unfortunately, neither NULL nor
0 provide a true null pointer option.
I'm not sure if you were trying, but your post made me laugh...
I especially like the "not" art, as I've never seen it before. Closest
I've see to that was a long time ago in an obfuscated code competition
where the programmer wrote code to solve a maze, and the code itself was
in the shape of a maze. Quite clever, though I think it was back before
the "web" when it was easy to spot clever bits... now there is so much
chaff, I don't even bother to look for the wheat...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk