On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:56:39 +0200 Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not in the sense you probably mean (I know of people who use my code on 64-bit platforms though). I've never followed Stroustrup's advice to use "0", because I had a (slight) hope that I could grep for "NULL" some day in the future and replace it with something better: this is from an old post of mine on c.l.c++.m (the message is very long, so I'll directly quote the relevant part here)
We started using it long ago when using NULL caused compiler errors in some situations with certain compilers. Unfortunately, neither NULL nor 0 provide a true null pointer option. I'm not sure if you were trying, but your post made me laugh... I especially like the "not" art, as I've never seen it before. Closest I've see to that was a long time ago in an obfuscated code competition where the programmer wrote code to solve a maze, and the code itself was in the shape of a maze. Quite clever, though I think it was back before the "web" when it was easy to spot clever bits... now there is so much chaff, I don't even bother to look for the wheat...