RE: C++ gnome code vs. gcc-2.95.1

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Marcin Gorycki wrote:
> > Hmm... Can you #undef NULL where you use these macros and 
> > define NULL as above?
> 
> sure I can, but should I be forced to do it ? Shouldn't the macros
> themselves be fixed ?
> 

I don't think 0 is correct in C; that is the problem. Using 0 for the NULL
pointer may cause "implicit conversion from integer to pointer" warnings.

I could be wrong.

I have no clue why _() returns void*, that seems way broken - and I
haven't gotten any warnings about it from 2.95 with gnome-apt. I'm not
sure what's going on there.

Havoc