search for: belkadan

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jordy Rose <jediknil at belkadan.com> wrote: > But I think I read somewhere that 0 is more C++esque. I believe Stroustrup espoused this at one point (perhaps even on his website) on the basis that using NULL gives you a false sense of security - which isn't entirely true now that compilers (GCC & clang presumably)...

Hi, LLVM. I have a question I'd like to get put into the official style guidelines: do we prefer NULL or 0 for C++ objects? I've seen both throughout the code. Personally I prefer NULL, since it establishes that something is a pointer and not an integer (or integer-constructed object, but thankfully we avoid implicit conversions in LLVM/Clang). But I think I read somewhere that 0 is more

What I can think of: 1. Anonymous struct, to avoid a copy. 2. Use stdarg.h...dangerous but accomplishes what you're looking for. 3. Split up F: giant switch statements often indicate that your function is doing several different things. (IMHO...) 4. Don't worry about it, it's probably not a bottleneck. (Or rather, profile first...) But no, there's no standard way to do this. Even