Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!cae780!tektronix!tekcrl!tekfdi!bobb
From: bobb@tekfdi.TEK.COM (Robert Bales)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Manx C
Message-ID: <1207@tekfdi.TEK.COM>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekfdi.1207
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Aug-87 05:46:55 EDT
References: <4540@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1836@vax135.UUCP> <4595@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <3199@zen.berkeley.edu> <17827@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3211@zen.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 19
Keywords: look at the assembly.

In article <3211@zen.berkeley.edu> waterman@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (T.S. Alan
Waterman) writes:

>     What I don't get is this-- (!ptr) seems more straightforward,
>     you never have to worry about types, and it makes smaller code
>     than (ptr == 0) anyway.  Why use the second expression? (with
>     pointers, at least.)

Speaking just for myself: :)

What does "if (!ptr)" mean? (rhetorical question) As we all know, it means the
same as "if (ptr == 0)" However, interpreting the first form requires
knowledge that the C "if" statement compares against 0, while the second form
makes the desired test explicit and is, therefore -- I feel -- clearer.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.