[quake3] Re: C++? when did that happen?

[Ben Noordhuis]

On 10/8/05, Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel at suse.de> wrote:
> You cannot blindly replace NULL with 0. sizeof(0) != sizeof(NULL) on
> 64bit platforms. Variadic functions for example will break if you pass 0 where
> you wanted to pass NULL. So always use NULL if you refer to a pointer.

Chapter 5.9 of the C FAQ (http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q5.9.html):

"Many programmers believe that NULL should be used in all pointer
contexts, as a reminder that the value is to be thought of as a
pointer. Others feel that the confusion surrounding NULL and 0 is only
compounded by hiding 0 behind a macro, and prefer to use unadorned 0
instead. There is no one right answer. (See also questions 9.2 and
17.10.) C programmers must understand that NULL and 0 are
interchangeable in pointer contexts, and that an uncast 0 is perfectly
acceptable. Any usage of NULL (as opposed to 0) should be considered a
gentle reminder that a pointer is involved; programmers should not
depend on it (either for their own understanding or the compiler's)
for distinguishing pointer 0's from integer 0's."

Carefully read the last line, please.
Sincerely,

Ben