OKay, I think I see the problem. WWW.DICTIoNARY.COM defines Show as 3. to indicate; point out: to show the way. 6. to make known to; inform, instruct, or prove to: I'll show you what I mean.
I intended to mean that 0 indicates the presence of nothing, but everyone was connecting that with Informing, which, of course, can't happen with a compilier. Thanks for your time. --- On Thu, 2/25/10, Tyler Littlefield <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Tyler Littlefield <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-prog] Is NULL defined somewhere? > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 8:51 AM > it doesn't tell the compiler > anything. the compiler can remove NULL checks, but at > compile-time the compiler doesn't need to know the value of > the pointer. > Thanks, > Tyler Littlefield > http://tds-solutions.net > Twitter: sorressean > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Benjamin Scott wrote: > > > Okay, I got it: Since the compilier is not > > Intelligent, then it can't know anything. > > Now how does that apply to my first statement? > > > > If a Pointer has the value of 0, then it SHOWS > > the compilier that it points to nothing. > > > > Isn't KNOWS and SHOWS different? I thought > > SHOWS doesn't mean understanding, but knows > > definely does. > > > > --- On Wed, 2/24/10, Tyler Littlefield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > From: Tyler Littlefield <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [c-prog] Is NULL defined somewhere? > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 11:03 PM > > > It doesn't know the value *at* the > > > pointer, nor the value it points to, unless your > using a > > > statement to assign/check. The pointer points to > an address, > > > so the compiler doesn't really know the value > unless it's > > > assigned, or unless it's a constant in some > cases. > > > Thanks, > > > Tyler Littlefield > > > http://tds-solutions.net > > > Twitter: sorressean > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Benjamin Scott > wrote: > > > > > > > Just curious, but why would the compiler > > > > knowing the value of a pointer be > pointless? > > > > I'm not sure what you mean, are you > > > > missing part of a thought? > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 2/24/10, Steve Searle <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Steve Searle <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [c-prog] Is NULL defined > somewhere? > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 6:41 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Around 12:20am on Thursday, February 25, > 2010 (UK > > > time), Benjamin Scott scrawled: > > > > > > > > > According to my understanding, If a > Pointer has > > > the > > > > > > > > > value of 0, then it shows the compilier > that it > > > points > > > > > > > > > to nothing, but I thought normally NULL > is > > > defined as > > > > > > > > > 0. > > > > > > > > Surely the concept of the compiler knowing a > value of > > > a pointer is > > > > > > > > meaningless? > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > (o< www.stevesearle. com > > > > > > > > //\ Powered by Fedora > > > > > > > > V_/_ No MS products were used in the > creation of this > > > message > > > > > > > > 00:40:30 up 23 days, 8:12, 0 users, load > average: > > > 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to > <mailto:[email protected]>.Yahoo! > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to > <mailto:[email protected]>.Yahoo! > Groups Links > > > [email protected] > > >
