Removing (HANDLE)NULL casts (2)

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On January 5, 2003 03:35 am, Francois Gouget wrote:
> For me 0 is an integer and thus it is wrong to assign it to a pointer.
> The compiler agrees with me for all non-zero integers but makes an
> exception for 0; 'for convenience's sake', or perhaps for historical
> reasons. NULL is a pointer so that's the right thing to use to
> initialize a pointer.

I used to think this way years ago, but I have relaxed my position.
Zero is fundamentally built into the language so deep, that playing
with tricks like NULL and '\0' seem like a waste of time.

Moreover, I seem to remember some arguments sometime ago about
0 being actually preferred to NULL, at least in C++.

Bottom like, it seems to me there is little point in having
a different names for the same thing: zero. In fact, I'd say
it's bad from a theoretical standpoint (and no, I don't much
care for the stronger typing argument, it buys you nothing in
this case).

But if it makes you happy... :)

-- 
Dimi.