Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hmm. Well, it showed the multiple incorrect uses of 0 as NULL in
dllist.c and other places,
Incidentally, while it may not be conformant to your style guidelines, use of
the constant 0 compared to or assigned to a pointer is a perfectly valid ANSI
spelling for NULL.
Absolutely. But I agree that it is more readable to use NULL when you mean a null pointer, and 0 when you mean an integer zero. The C standard may not distinguish these concepts, but I do ;-)
Something that I don't have a real strong feeling about is if (ptr != NULL) versus if (ptr) I've been known to write both. Can anyone mount a good readability argument for one over the other?
How about the inverse case, if (ptr == NULL) versus if (!ptr) Applying a boolean ! to a pointer seems a bit shaky to me, though it's certainly a common locution.
If we allow "if (ptr)" then allowing the inverse to be "if (! ptr)" seems logical enough. As you say, it's a very common idiom, and allowing one without the other would be rather non-orthogonal.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
