Re: Non-null pointers in C/C++?

angel_tsankov wrote:
> It's been some time since I started wondering why the C/C++ languages
> do not have a non-null pointer (something like a copyable C++
> reference)? In my opinion, using non-null pointers instead of the
> "traditional" ones (wherever appropriate) would provide the following
> benefits:
> -allows restrictive programming techniques to be apllied at a lower
> cost (e.g. if a pointer passed to a function may not be null, there
> would be no need for a null-check before dereferencing it);
> -allow for improvements in programming practices (having two types of
> pointers will bring to attention the difference between them, namely
> the possibility that "traditional" pointers can be null, hopefully
> thus making it more obvious that "traditional" pointers should be
> checked for null before thay are dereferenced);
> -allow for more reliable code (having a "traditional" pointer where a
> non-null pointer would do increases the risk of undefined behavior; on
> the other hand, using a non-null pointer instead would be safer);
> -provide compilers with further semantic information, thus enabling
> them to perform more optimizations;
> -make source code more concise (as a result of having fewer null-tests
> when replacing "traditional" pointers with non-null ones).
> 
> What do you think?

and what happens if a null pointer gets passed as an argument to a 
non-null pointer parameter?
-- 
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: clcm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be
seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line.  Sorry.