Jonathan M Davis said:
Makes no difference; NULL is just a macro that translates to 0, sometimes with a mostly-unnecessary cast to void*. Actually, I've heard of systems where it _did_ differ for some bizarre reason (which I think is why some recommend that you always use 0 and never NULL),
This is never the case for an implementation conforming to any of C90, C94, or C99.
which resulted in very bizarre behavior if you checked pointers for true or false directly or mixed 0 and NULL.
That sounds like a problem with C++, where you can't safely use "(void *) 0" as a null pointer. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646