Re: !foo vs foo == nil
Re: !foo vs foo == nil
- Subject: Re: !foo vs foo == nil
- From: Scott Ribe <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:56:57 -0600
- Thread-topic: !foo vs foo == nil
> It is an intentional omission (I have had this argument before on
> comp.lang.c, except I was arguing your side at the time, and was set
> straight).
So, to be clear, there was at one time debate over whether null -> integer
yields 0 should be in the standard, and in the end that was intentionally
omitted? So the error is in the editing--the stray "except as previously
specified" was accidentally left in referring to nothing?
> Of course, this is, for the most part, all academic, as any platforms
> on which Cocoa (or OpenStep APIs) exist all convert a null pointer to
> zero and vice-versa.
Yes. And the general evolution of things has been away from segmented/exotic
addressing schemes to flat memory addressing. For good reasons, too ;-)
--
Scott Ribe
email@hidden
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden