Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about nullptr
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 15:50:14 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <20240709155014.000039d0@yahoo.com>
References: <v6bavg$3pu5i$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240706054641.175@kylheku.com>
	<v6bfi1$3qn4u$1@dont-email.me>
	<l9ciO.7$cr5e.2@fx05.iad>
	<877cdyuq0f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<2ckiO.19403$7Ej.4487@fx46.iad>
	<87plrpt4du.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<9bCiO.7108$sXW9.3805@fx41.iad>
	<877cdwu9s1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<20240708222804.00001654@yahoo.com>
	<v6hotk$11nib$2@dont-email.me>
	<20240709104848.00005732@yahoo.com>
	<86cynmajh9.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 14:49:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="563505b595a11e4e07a72bd290784cde";
	logging-data="1383167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MZ1OvKqLufLb28NSnwGoJV7Tq3DmTxbI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JdAfybe70D5WJNoZD6ulrWL1VMo=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)

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.