[quake3] Re: C++? when did that happen?
ludwig.nussel at suse.de
Fri Oct 7 18:45:35 PDT 2005
Tim Angus wrote:
> I'll say again, using 0 in place of NULL in C is perfectly valid and
> correct. Yes, NULL is implementation defined, but that DOES NOT make the
> use of 0 in place of NULL wrong, nor does it make it a "C++ism".
You cannot blindly replace NULL with 0. sizeof(0) != sizeof(NULL) on
64bit platforms. Variadic functions for example will break if you pass 0 where
you wanted to pass NULL. So always use NULL if you refer to a pointer.
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Development
More information about the ioquake3