Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: 0 vs NULL - a note From: Robert Collins To: Robert Collins Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <1006910727.637.0.camel@lifelesswks> References: <20011127230925 DOT GA5830 AT redhat DOT com> <000001c1779c$e1fe2fa0$2101a8c0 AT NOMAD> <20011127235226 DOT GA6537 AT redhat DOT com> <1006906033 DOT 2048 DOT 23 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20011128002122 DOT GA6919 AT redhat DOT com> <1006907495 DOT 2048 DOT 25 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20011128005414 DOT GA7118 AT redhat DOT com> <1006910727 DOT 637 DOT 0 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.99.2 (Preview Release) Date: 28 Nov 2001 12:58:41 +1100 Message-Id: <1006912722.712.2.camel@lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2001 02:00:07.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[674FB170:01C177B0] This is simply a FYI for those interested. http://www.multimania.com/pierret/cpp212.htm may precende the standard ratification as it still tests for new returning 0. It makes an excellent point about NULL vs 0 in assignments. Anyway, for clarity: Both 0 and NULL are acceptable in setup.exe. Rob