Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
- Subject: Re: [Obj-C] if (self) vs. if (self != nil)
- From: Kyle Sluder <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:53:10 -0800
On Feb 24, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Scott Ribe <email@hidden> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Wade Tregaskis wrote:
>
>> Though technically speaking it's true, and is thus an argument for actually using NULL rather than 0
>
> No, it's not such an argument at all. The compiler guarantees that null pointers converted to int become 0,
No it very much doesn't. See my citations.
> that constant 0 assigned to a pointer makes it null,
This is true, but emphasis on the "constant." Assigning a non-constant integer expression to a pointer is implementation-defined, regardless of the value of the integer expression.
> and that null pointer compared to 0 is true
Again, this is dependent on context. Hence the doubt I expressed in my initial post. There is no direct comparison defined between pointer types and integers.
--Kyle Sluder
_______________________________________________
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