If (!pointer)

Go back to web dev

switch (pointer) {
case NULL:
default:
}

I do 2 because splint complains if you do 1.

i will tomorrow morning :|

>if (pointer == NULL)

I can handle #1 though.

pointer & NULL ?

always results in null

It's not a valid operation to begin with.

>if (pointer == NULL)
is the cleanest to understand
>if (!pointer)
hides type (pointer vs integer) but for some reason is always recommended

if (NULL == pointer)
is the recommended for code that needs to be safe and not crash because you could make a mistake (it's happened) where you accidentally
if (pointer = NULL)
and some bullshit happens like UID is set to 0 or your computer explodes

I prefer this style because it means you can't mistype NULL = pointer

When comparing with a literal, literal should ALWAYS go on the left hand side.

Compilers have been warning about that shit for ages. It's a non-issue.
All it does now is make your logic harder to follow, because it doesn't read as naturally.

Yoda conditions best conditions

>because it doesn't read as naturally.
to (You)

Yoda comparison

This.

Don't do this: while( ( c = getchar() ) != NULL ) {

Thank you.

Attached: tom-cruise.png (1200x800, 1.44M)

>in Java everything is a pointer

>Don't do this:
Doing it that way is actually the best way to do it.

Everything is a pointer in nearly every language which isn't C or C++.

Assignments within conditionals is bad practise.

In the case of loops, it actually has a benefit: it reduces code duplication.
The way you'd have to write that without putting it inside the conditional is
int c = getchar();
while (c != EOF) {
// Do thing
c = getchar();
}

int c;

for(;;)
{
/* do something */

c = getchar();

/* do some other thing */

if(isEof(c))
{
break;
}

/* do more things */
}

Get on my level.

Attached: booblevel.png (1280x720, 863K)

not using C

Fuck off. It's fine as long as the code is readable.

>what is do while

while(*dest++ = *src != 0);

What the fuck is this language

*src++
god damnit

Literally not equivalent to

>He doesn't understand expressions

Whats an expression, I just want to write some code

dumb sepples poster

cuck

hi!

if the pointer is a "null pointer", the value of pointer is literally 0

so you can check if(pointer == 0)

since 0, when cast to bool is false, if(!pointer) is indeed the best choice, as pointed out.

to quote SE:
>NULL is not a built-in constant in the C or C++ languages. In fact, in C++ it's more or less obsolete, just use a plain literal 0 instead, the compiler will do the right thing depending on the context.

what are built-ins

>if the pointer is a "null pointer", the value of pointer is literally 0
nice bait

pointers are just numbers, senpai

>in C++ it's more or less obsolete, just use a plain literal 0 instead
Sounds derprecated for C++11+. Source?

nvm, found it and it explicitly says it's outdated

none of the code in K & R is readable

That have a type.
NULL is a macro, it can be void* or int

if (!pointer) unless you really want to be explicit for some reason (for example you don't know pointer is actually a pointer, comparing to NULL reminds you it is)

TYPE MY ANUS

with pleasure ;)

>pointers are just numbers
listen up, just because ptr==0 evaluates to true (1) for ptr being a nullpointer, doesnt mean that its literal value is 0.

it just means that 0 in pointer context evaluates to the same as any nullpointer.

c-faq.com/null/machexamp.html
softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/128327/what-is-the-difference-between-a-pointer-pointing-to-0x0-location-and-a-pointer

C pleb here

what's the difference between 2 and 3?

>while(*dest++ = *src++ != 0);
Why in God's name would you do this.

Operations do not commute in this language.

NULL is an rvalue (you cannot assign something to it) and pointer is a potential lvalue.

Because elitism.

to prevent the common typo
if (pointer=NULL)
(assignment, not comparison)

but it's kind of a nonissue nowadays, see

more important, is that two sequence points at once?

The second one because it's more natural to read

The hell?
getchar doesn't return a pointer

>based java
Curse you Java for not allowing pointers to primitive types and forcing me to create object wrappers when I want to return more than one primitive types from a function

>C++
References were a mistake

>if (NULL == pointer)
this implies that nothing is equal to possibly something, which is not logical.

>if (pointer == NULL)
if possibly something is equal to nothing, is much more logical.

>Assignments within conditionals is bad practise.
Wrong!
There is literally a paragraph in K&R where they explain why this is the best form

>doesnt mean that its literal value is 0.
it literally does tho; is this bait?

Actually in some architectures, NULL is not 0.

There is a question on theC FAQ about this

this

Both the first and the last one prevents accidental assignments, but I prefer the last one because the intention is more explicit.

it literally is

>listen up, just because i==3 evaluates to true (1) for i being a three, doesnt mean that its literal value is 3.
>it just means that 3 in int context evaluates to the same as any three.
lad...

first
why on earth would anyone use the following twos?

>doesnt mean that its literal value is 0
Don't think in C terms dipshit. Think of what is actually happening on the CPU.

If you're programming for one architecture, sure.

Acadamic circlejerking is the cancer ruining software development.

>he says on an anime website

there's no NULL on the CPU, shitstain

I said 0, not null.

First because NULL is not a C keyword.

Your right, NULL is not a keyword. It is a macro defined in stddef.h.
Also, NULL is not guaranteed to be zero. Second one. Bitch.

>Also, NULL is not guaranteed to be zero.
Yes it is. It is not guaranteed to be an all-zero bit pattern, but it IS guaranteed to be the C value zero, however that is represented in bits.