Re: !foo vs foo == nil
Re: !foo vs foo == nil
- Subject: Re: !foo vs foo == nil
- From: Uli Kusterer <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:01:12 +0200
On 21.08.2008, at 02:43, Torsten Curdt wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 01:50, Ken Thomases wrote:
On Aug 20, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Torsten Curdt wrote:
I guess my questions wasn't phrased correctly. The point was more:
is 'nil' really the equivalent of 0 or NULL.
Let's put it this way: freshly allocated objects have their memory
zeroed out,
Why should that affect the pointer to an object?
I think what he meant to say is that, since Apple guarantees stuff
will be zeroed out, and much code already relies on ivars that have
pointer types being nil, it's unlikely that NULL will not be binary-
equivalent to one or more zeroes, because that would break pretty much
all code.
Cheers,
-- Uli Kusterer
"The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere..."
http://www.zathras.de
_______________________________________________
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