<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Null-Pointer on Karpoke - Just Another Blog</title><link>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/tags/null-pointer/</link><description>Recent content in Null-Pointer on Karpoke - Just Another Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.167.0</generator><language>es</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:40:00 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/tags/null-pointer/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Why NULL points to 0?</title><link>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/2012/06/26/why-null-points-to-0/</link><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:40:00 +0100</pubDate><guid>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/2012/06/26/why-null-points-to-0/</guid><description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A few years ago I would answer the above question with ”because NULL
is defined as a void pointer to 0”, which is only half correct (and
close to being wrong). The answer to this question is much more
complicated and thus much more interesting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Let’s start with checking what the C standards (or actually drafts of
the standards) say about the (in)famous NULL ptr. The
green/yellow/orange colors mark the part that caught my attention.
I’ll leave the C++0x case for another time (C++0x introduces the
nullptr of std::nullptr_t type btw). For TL;DR scroll down, I
summarize the points anyway.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>