Which is better?
Which is better?
Alexander Taylor
Other urls found in this thread:
Ayden Fisher
they aren't even the same but I think you knew that before you posted you double nigger
Matthew Martinez
null is not always the same value or type as false
Delet thread and try again
Austin White
Neither
Liam Fisher
(ptr == nullptr)
{
Chase Ortiz
>having NULL in your language
Aaron Collins
first:
if (ptr == nullptr) {
}
Second:
Class* g_pClass = nullptr;
if (!g_pClass) {
}
Lucas Richardson
Depends on the condition you actually want to use
Asher Baker
if (!ptr)
return !!!ptr;
Elijah Scott
First checks for null, second checks for false
However if the first was if(ptr == false) I'd say the second way is better
Jonathan Bailey
They are the same retard. Go back to HTML dev
Cooper Cox
just save yourself from any headaches user
if(true)
{
..
}
just go with it, you will have more time to drink piña colladas
Gabriel Price
>They are the same retard.
Kill yourself. NULL is not the same as boolean false.
Wyatt Wood
if (false) {
print("Op is not a faggot");
}
Thomas Watson
There is no boolean false in c.
Gabriel Rogers
There's a lot of stupid shit going on in C. That's why we don't design our languages after it.
Grayson Ortiz
use c++ & nullptr instead, you fuck
Austin Barnes
Assuming NULL is 0, C compilers should output the same assembly code in both cases (comparing it to zero). I think the first one is more readable, but I'd go with whatever style the big projects use (e.g., Linux).
Blake Myers
Boolean is a useless type when the smallest memory you can address without bit fields is 8 bits.
Robert Hall
Nah man, thats a bad assumption. NULL is literally nothing while 0 is still something. OP is a fag and baited every C fag with an ambiguous example of a modern language, which C is not.
Noah Parker
if (_.isNil(ptr)) {
/* do something */
}
Checks for null and undefined.
Christian Fisher
in C, I usually end up just using the latter -- it's guaranteed to work (even if your architecture doesn't actually use address 0 for a null pointer) and is less typing and is pretty idiomatic
in fact, there's no actual reason to ever check against the NULL macro in C, unless you're on some weird embedded system where it's actually not set to zero and the compiler isn't standard
the former is required in a lot of other languages though, and recommended in C++ nowadays (well, if you replaced NULL with nullptr)
you're actually retarded
Jackson Thomas
if(isObjectEmpty(x) && !x && x == NULL && !(bool)x && (x ? x : false)) {
}
You can never be too sure...
Jack Walker
If x is NULL won't that always return false?
Jose Turner
>Working with people who don't know pointers
(ptr == NULL)
>Working with people who do know about pointers
(!ptr)
Brandon Perez
When it won't significantly affect performance (which is 90% of the time), it's your responsibility as a developer to write code that is the easiest to understand for you and other developers, and communicates the program's logic best. So you should use the former.
Josiah Turner
why would that even matter? just use == for null checks
Leo Evans
NULL is not guaranteed to be the same as (void *)0 so the former is objectively correct.
Cooper Davis
Holy fuck, why are there so many JS fags in here?
If you haven't written C before, you should go kill yourself.
Benjamin Murphy
Zero literal is a null pointer constant. That means that comparison to zero literal is the same as comparison to NULL, even if NULL is not (void *)0 (assuming that NULL has a compliant definition).
Jaxon Bell
lol
Jeremiah Cook
lol, you fucking retard.
Adam Hall
Top convention in case variable names don't make type clear.
Adrian Murphy
if (!ptr) is better. I think it looks more aesthetic.
Asher Williams
Also context. Say depending on how far decleration is from use.
Luke Perez
#define NULL (void *) 1
Because fuck your validation.
Asher Nelson
The standard guarantees that a NULL pointer compares equal to 0, even if the architecture doesn't use 0 as the NULL pointer.
Evan Jackson
Is ptr even a pointer?
We haven't seen it defined.
ptr can be anything in OP's image, it could be any variable type.
Luke Turner
For readability, I would prefer the former (you express, that this is a null check), however the latter is more common in C programming, so it doesn't really matter.
Benjamin Stewart
>Not believing variable names
That is what I really hate in programming. You need to proofread other people's code, because they are lazy to refactor.
Leo Price
depends on the language retard
Xavier Myers
>NULL
>Not nullptr
Nolan Sullivan
C
Brayden Martin
Dumb Ctard doesn't understand the point of types. Not surprising.
Hudson Hughes
Why the fuck are you using C?
John Hernandez
>having pointers in your language
Thomas Adams
Who is this cute girl?
Samuel Wood
>nightmares about porting a C codebase to C++
>some idiot thought it was a good idea to have 0 on the C version and NULL on the c++ version
Alexander Cruz
if(p == nil)
Levi Garcia
if (!!!!!!!ptr == NULL) {
}
Gabriel Watson
>girl
Thomas Cooper
If it looks like a girl, walks like a girl and talks like a girl, it's a girl.
The only valid system to use in such a case is dick typing.
Jack Davis
Have you ever touched a pointer in your life?
Juan Parker
Somewhere in stdlib.h...
>#define NULL 0
Robert Butler
Not always for embedded systems. there's a reason the null macro exists, not just a synonym for 0
Josiah Bell
It's 2017 and people don't write
if (NULL == ptr) {
Henry Ortiz
Nowadays compilers warn about this shit, no need to make things less readable.
Jason Young
you mean
#define NULL ((void *)0)
Hunter Perry
You're a fucking idiot. "!ptr" is defined as evaluating to 1 if ptr is NULL.
Jason Carter
ptr == NULL is exactly what it is.
!ptr is ptr == false
git gud famalamdingdong
William Nelson
NULL is defined as being casted to zero when used in a scalar context.
Thomas Edwards
Friendly reminder that C style NULL define is godawful for a bunch of reasons and if you use sepples you should use nullptr instead.
Ryan Diaz
...
Anthony Stewart
>looks like a girl
I don't know any girls that have animal ears and humongous eyes that cover more than 60% of the face.
Luis Nguyen
you are fucking stupid lmao
what if I told you that true/false is just an alias/enum for 1/0
Dominic Rodriguez
You need to get out of your dimension more.
Brandon Bennett
if (ptr == nullptr)
{
}
Wyatt Jenkins
what reasons are those?
Isaiah Turner
Depending on your compiler it could just be the literal 0, and follow the assignment rules of an int rather than a pointer type
also in sepples particularly it fucks with function overloads. That's the same reason a char literal really is a char in sepples.
Christian Cox
this
Mason Moore
along with enums, right?
Daniel Brown
#include
int main() {
bool hello = false;
bool* goodbye = &hello;
if(goodbye == NULL) {
std::cout
Parker Thomas
>C++
>NULL macro
kys
Liam Butler
I prefer !ptr
Jacob Sanchez
if(!ptr)
continue;
else
return !ptr ? !ptr : !ptr;
Luis Cooper
>Which is better?
IIRC they are both defined by the C standard as being identical.
Sebastian Sullivan
>use c++
Not even once.
Lincoln Morgan
If they both compile to the same opcodes then who gives a shit
Julian Nguyen
!ptr ?: return !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr ?: !ptr;
Or, in shorthand:
while (!ptr) return !ptr ?: !ptr;
Isaiah Johnson
if variable == True:
return(None)
is superior to
if variable:
return(None)
because it is more readable and more obvious which condition triggers the statement. explicit beats implicit every time.
Grayson Fisher
nice meme. you are very stupid