@dmmfix @GrumpyHook It's possible that they've added something new now, but 0 was the standard up until now.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @HookTM
@cmuratori@dmmfix IIRC, "0" was always correct and NULL was implementation defined, often to (void*)0, which would generate warnings/errors1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HookTM
@GrumpyHook@dmmfix No, technically 0 was not correct in C, because some architectures used to use 0 as a valid pointer.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@dmmfix literal 0 was correct in C because it promoted to pointer comparison correctly.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HookTM1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
Replying to @HookTM
@GrumpyHook@dmmfix Whoa... OK, that is a little confusing. If that is true, why did NULL ever exist?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@dmmfix NULL is 100% stylistic (in C), intended to avoid pointer/numeral confusion, which is why it's implementation defined.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HookTM
@cmuratori@dmmfix Everything you wanted to know about C NULL =) http://c-faq.com/~scs/cgi-bin/faqcat.cgi?sec=null …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@GrumpyHook @dmmfix Well that's kind of nice. I always thought in old C's, you technically had to use NULL. But I guess you don't.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.