Hi all!
Not that I'm defending C++ in anyway (and sorry for somewhat off-topic):
On 10/01/2019 00:14, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
> And yes, I realize that the C++ people completely screwed up, and
> originally doubled down on the old K&R C model of "NULL must be 0". It
Yup, because they would have to type-cast "(void*)0" everywhere ...
> took them a decade or more to understand just how wrong they were, but
> they finally got over it. It's C++, what can I say?
They finally fixed it with the "nullptr" symbol (and "nullptr_t" type of
it - which makes no sense in a pure C world).
---- snip ----
#define nullptr (void*)0
---- snip ----
in C, use it instead of "NULL" and that's it totally pure clean C since
K&R;-)
Something like that should actually have gone in some C standard ages
ago ....
> The fact that the C++ people had no taste, and the fact that a lot of
> C compilers have to dead with old per-K&R C and deal with header files
^^^^ Freudian typo[0]? SCNR ...;-)
> and legacy programs that still assume "0 is a valid NULL pointer" is
> entirely immaterial.
There are situations (e.g. like execv() and friends) where it *is*
(always) a (with execv() a "char*") pointer context but the C-compiler
has no chance to know it because it's a variable argument list (except
with special handling on the name of the sys-call/funtion within the
compiler).
MfG,
Bernd
[0]: Is that the English version of the German "Freud'scher
Versprecher/Verschreiber"?
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
