Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- From: Netocrat <netocrat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:41:13 +1100
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:07:00 +0000, Mabden wrote:
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:43696A75.E107E974@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Mabden wrote:
>> > But they moved NULL. Do you agree with and / or like the fact that "C
>> > guarantees that zero is never a valid address for data" has gone
>> > away?
>>
>> NULL has never had the meaning "address 0" even though it has often
>> been implemented as such.
[explanation omitted]
> Perhaps you missed the "p.p.s please don't tell me about null and zero"
> plea.
That request was made in a separate comp.lang.c thread. It doesn't appear
in this newsgroup unless in a post that my newsreader didn't receive.
[...]
--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat
.
- References:
- Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- From: Mabden
- Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- From: kuyper
- Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- From: Mabden
- Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- From: Douglas A. Gwyn
- Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- From: Mabden
- Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- Prev by Date: Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- Next by Date: Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- Previous by thread: Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- Next by thread: Re: Draft standards OK for new compiler and libc?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
