Re: question about nullptr

On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:32:50 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
 

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:23:47 -0700
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 7/8/2024 12:28 PM, Michael S wrote:
 

On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 15:17:34 -0700
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
 

I just about always use NULL, not 0, when I want a null pointer
constant.  Similarly, I use '\0', not 0, when I want a null
character, 0.0 when I want a floating-point zero, and false when
I want a Boolean zero.  I just like being explicit. 

>
Pointer:  I very rarely use NULL.
Character:  I never use '\0'. 

>
Not even something like:
>
#define CLINE 128
>
char x[CLINE] = { '\0' };
>
?
>
;^) 

>
I see nothing special about your case. {0} is the most appropriate.
 

 
Any use of '\0' almost always strikes me as an affectation.  It's
like people want to somehow pretend that it's not the same as
just 0.
 

And, BTW, I never use #define for integer constants. 

 
What do you do if you need to define a compile-time constant
whose value is outside the range of signed int?  With the
understanding that the context is C as it is now, and not
C++ or some imagined other language.

In comment above "integer constant" meant "within the range of signed
int". But let's accept more general meaning. Then, when it happens, I
have a problem and forced to flex my principles :(
Luckily, it's pretty rare. I mean, it's pretty rare that the constant
is both outside the range of signed int and I really really have to
have it as compile-time constant. More often big numbers like these are
used in arithmetic/logic, so 'const wide_type' or 'static const
wide_type' is practically as good as a "real" compile-time constant
despite being "less constant" in theory.