From: jon_bills AT hotmail DOT com (Jon Bills)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Making C++ little easier to beginners...
Date: 20 Oct 2001 03:35:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <38315c2d.0110200235.2fad7adb@posting.google.com>
References: <9qmkrh$581$1 AT tron DOT sci DOT fi> <9qq97t$2df$1 AT tron DOT sci DOT fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.99.244.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1003574110 327 127.0.0.1 (20 Oct 2001 10:35:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Oct 2001 10:35:10 GMT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Traveler" <traveler AT netti DOT fi> wrote in message news:<9qq97t$2df$1 AT tron DOT sci DOT fi>...
> Let me make few things clear:

[snip]

> 5)    Dietmar Kuehl wrote:
> 
>> Nope, you cannot:
>>  
>>   if (ptr == 0 || ptr->something())
>>     ;
>>  
>> will work correctly when being passed a corresponding null pointer
while
>>  
>>   if (ptr == 0 | ptr->something())
>>     ;
>> 
>> will not: It will "crash" (ie. invoke "undefined behavior") when
applying the
>> '->' operator.
>  
> Strange...it did not crash in my maschine....

Unfortunately, Dietmar used the word "crash" in his post. However, you
should understand he was pointing out that the result is *undefined
behaviour*, one possibility of which is the machine crashing; another
possibility is apparently correct behaviour. If you are not familiar
with the definition of undefined behaviour, then I suggest you get
your hands on a copy of the C++ Standard. The lesson is to not rely on
your compiler as defining the correct behaviour of C++.

[snip]

Jon.