Hi, On 8 October 2013 19:22, Mouse <[email protected]> wrote: >> Good catch. It's just luck that False is #defined as 0. :) It >> should, of course, be NULL. > > Well, I'd actually disagree; I think NULL should never be used - see my > blah post of 2009-10-09 > (http://ftp.rodents-montreal.org/mouse/blah/2009-10-09-1.html) for why.
Given the choice between inventing our own 'nil pointer' type and thus deviating from the entire body of C code written ever, and working correctly on systems which define NULL as a pointer-cast zero value (and thus getting appropriate integer/pointer mismatch warnings on relevant compilers), we're taking the latter. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
