Re: [PATCH v3] NULL.3const: Add documentation for NULL

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Doug,

On 7/27/22 15:23, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
> I agree with all of Ingo's comments. A man page is a reference, not a
> history, not a tutorial, not a style guide, There s nothing to say
> about NULL beyond it's being a synonym for the constant 0 converted to
> the null pointer. Other facts about the behavior of null pointers will
> have been learned however or wherever one learned C.
>
> The remark about segfaults is really about hardware, not about C.
> Sometimes the undefined behavior can be made to manifest as a
> segfault. But it is not an intrinsic property of null pointers.
>
> Incidentally, I personally don't use NULL. Why, when C provides a
> crisp notation, 0, should one want to haul in an extra include file to
> activate a shouty version of it?

Even if I disagree with you on this, I think we both agree that adding a 
third way to define a null pointer constant would be detrimental for all 
of us.

ISO C2x has accepted a proposal to add C++'s nullptr to C:
<https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3042.htm>
And 2 days ago it went into the (possibly final) draft for C23:
<https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3047.pdf>

See a discussion going on right now between me and several committee 
members here:
<https://discourse.llvm.org/t/iso-c3x-proposal-nonnull-qualifier/59269/48>

Maybe you want to jump in and rant a little bit :)

The email to reply is:
LLVM Discussion Forums 
<incoming+fa83fb1bc64f78f0a59b320bd782459f@llvm.discoursemail.com>

The latest message ID is:
<9ca964a8-c754-a15e-c674-f739763cc569@gmail.com>

And the subject is:
Re: ISO C3X proposal: nonnull qualifier

Cheers,

Alex