On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Yes, there are *dozens* of packages that fail to build due to "return
> false;" in a function that returns a pointer of some kind.
Wow, curious. Anyway, that removes my objection.
On 03/02/16 19:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:42:37AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:13 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> +pointer constants, so other constants such as false and
>> +(1 - 1) cannot be used where a null pointer is desired.
So, I’d leave this
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:42:37AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:13 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >> +pointer constants, so other constants such as false and
> >> +(1 - 1) cannot be used where a null pointer is desired.
>
> So, I’d leave this out entirely. The subject is porting,
On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:13 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> +pointer constants, so other constants such as false and
>> +(1 - 1) cannot be used where a null pointer is desired.
So, I’d leave this out entirely. The subject is porting, not the fine detail
pedanticism only a language lawyer could love. W
