Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about nullptr
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 04:01:12 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <v6sn59$3dbk7$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <87jzhwu5v9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20240708001722.280@kylheku.com>
 <v6gab6$qdd2$1@dont-email.me> <878qyctcdt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6gf23$r5pf$1@dont-email.me> <8734ojua2s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6h9su$vkip$1@dont-email.me> <87sewjsdc5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6m9bn$1vbsi$1@dont-email.me> <87cynkommh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6r6c7$3122q$1@dont-email.me> <87y166jh60.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 04:01:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c67d3509253d88b471bcddd042e1bd0";
	logging-data="3583623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UevL6vGuQAkqC9QvOUbb3"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m3S9dHa7Wd3RdFLrpFWclVLGFUI=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <87y166jh60.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Bytes: 2821

On 13.07.2024 01:59, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 11.07.2024 01:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Without such an example, your argument seems to be overly generic.
>>
>> That's why I had problems to "explain" the reasons to you; because
>> it's so universal a property, so obvious (as I said), that I don't
>> know what else I could say.
> 
> Yes, that's been the clear for a while now.  That's why, when you said
> you could not say more, I was happy to leave it at that (my "ok").

You again strip the post where my try for an explanation follows:

>> What example could I give that explains that if you're looking for
>> specific dedicated semantical values it's easier to look them up
>> by [semantical] name than by a [ambiguous] number.

Are those semantical names so meaningless to you?

Let's take the 'bool' sample; do you find it more helpful to look
for numerical falues in the code than to look for standard literals
like 'true' and 'false'? (It's not much different concerning 'NULL'.)

(But okay, given your last response patterns you seem to not be
interested.)

Janis