This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 0 vs NULL - a note
- From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:16:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: 0 vs NULL - a note
- References: <20011127230925.GA5830@redhat.com> <000001c1779c$e1fe2fa0$2101a8c0@NOMAD> <20011127235226.GA6537@redhat.com> <1006906033.2048.23.camel@lifelesswks> <20011128002122.GA6919@redhat.com> <1006907495.2048.25.camel@lifelesswks> <20011128005414.GA7118@redhat.com> <1006910727.637.0.camel@lifelesswks> <1006912722.712.2.camel@lifelesswks>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:58:41PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> This is simply a FYI for those interested.
> may precende the standard ratification as it still tests for new
> returning 0. It makes an excellent point about NULL vs 0 in assignments.
> Anyway, for clarity: Both 0 and NULL are acceptable in setup.exe.
And another note:
avoid all confusion about 0 vs. NULL.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:email@example.com
Red Hat, Inc.