I think you are talking about a separate (and identical issue). "NULL" is not a ... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		gizmo686 on May 26, 2013 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Language Design Deal Breakers I think you are talking about a separate (and identical issue). "NULL" is not a valid memory location. 0 is a valid memory location. Because we have to express NULL as the same primitive type as valid memory locations, we have no way to distinguish between NULL and 0. In a language with a type system that prevents you from dereferencing NULL, this problem goes away. Now that the type system can distinguish between NULL and a pointer, we can once again use 0 as a valid pointer.

JadeNB on May 26, 2013 [–]

> I think you are talking about a separate (and identical issue).

Somehow, this reads very strangely to me. Are you saying something like "I think you are talking about the same issue from a different point of view"?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact