Followup: NULL macro vs. 0 as null pointer?
From: Ken (kk_oop_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 23 Jul 2004 09:01:16 -0700
Hi. This is a followup to my NULL macro vs. 0 question. It's in a
separate thread, because I need to post using google, so my original
thread isn't available to me yet :(.
Anyway, I just noticed that in Stroustrup's book, he says (section
5.1.1, The C++ Programming Language):
"In C, it has been popular to define a macro NULL to represent the
zero pointer. Because of C++'s tighter type checking, the use of
plain 0, rather than any suggested NULL macro, leads to fewer
Could someone explain how the tighter type checking plays a role, and
what problems are being avoided?