Re: using literal zero for NULL

["Jon A. Cruz" <jon joncruz org>]

On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:

> I've never worked out why anybody needs to type "0" when they could  
> type
> "NULL". Given all the random segfaults, and type errors, and  
> readability
> concerns and whatnot, are your fingers _really_ that lazy?

Some of it is more of a C++ thing, rather than pure C. And there was,  
at least for a while, a period where using 0 for C++ solved a lot  
more problems.