On Sun, 30 Jul 1995, mud admin staff wrote: > > if (GET_ROOM_SPEC(ch->in_room) != NULL) > > couldn't the same thing be accomplished with this? : > > if (GET_ROOM_SPEC(ch->in_room)) > > yes on most systems, but I have come across documentation that swore that NULL > is not aways == 0. Who ever coded the first like Probably had read some of it > also. no, it is the same on _every_ ANSI-C Compiler, and on any other known C-Compilers too. Maybe you just have missread these documentations. NULL must be 0, but NULL needn't to be "binary" 0. > > > I've noticed statements like the first one in lots of places in the circle > > code. Wouldn't the program be slightly smaller with the second statment? > > If you ever look at the assembly out put of most good compilers they catch it > right away... and use them as the equivaltent. GCC only does with the -O flag > or better. (Linux version that I can be soure of) > Nonsense. =) You really get the same assembly output with both versions. Actually it's just a question of coding style. Some people want to make sure everybody notices the type of a variable on the first look, so they write NULL whenever possible, to show it's a pointer. All you can achieve is a few bits less of source code. :) Personally i use the shorter form too, because it seems better readable to me, but thats only my personal point of view, which is not shared by too many people. Herbert [on public request 12 lines of signature deleted] *snip* ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST