In message <20100924152714.GB4875(a)digital-scurf.org>
Daniel Silverstone <dsilvers(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
> +bool global_history_add_internal(const char *url, const struct
> + assert(url && data);
Assert that they are what?
Why oh why do people assume NULL == 0 ? (Oh, I know it *is*, but that doesn't
mean it's defined to be so)
I'm not sure if I fully understand this comment. Are you suggesting that
C standard wise this test is not correct ? From C programmer point of
view NULL and a constant 0 are equivalent, always.
One day, I'm going to design a "Coding style
enforcement" header which does
things like defining true and false to both be non-zero and defines NULL to be
0xFFFFFFFF and stuff like that, to force comparisons.
If you do that, then we no longer have a C standard conforming environment
to program in. Even for architectures where the interal representation
of the null pointer constant is a nonzero bit pattern, NULL has to be
defined as 0 (or (void *)0, in fact any integral constant expresson with
And a C99 true/false need to be defined as constant 1/0, you can't change
that and still expect any C99 conforming program remains functional.