You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
No ? Not so easy.
Maybe. It depends to what is applying the "same" ?
Strictly speaking they are not the same as they are different.
Semantically they are not the same as we don't know how '!' is implemented with a pointer. Maybe !ptr is replaced by ptr== NULL || CheckPointer(ptr)==POINTER_INVALID by the compiler ?
The final result is the same though. No ?
Semantically they are not the same as we don't know how '!' is implemented with a pointer. Maybe !ptr is replaced by ptr== NULL || CheckPointer(ptr)==POINTER_INVALID by the compiler ?
Thank you, Alain. That's what I'm talking about and the reason for my question.
I don't know if the syntactical simplification if(!pointer) also checks for NULL. But apparently not.
Nevertheless, A little tip:
Please don't answer such simple yes-or-no questions with contradictions or uncertainties – that is neither polite nor helpful. And if you don't "want" to answer such easy questions directly, then don't answer - that's not correct!
Yeah but the documentation is not a trustworthy reference. They sometimes update it to fix bug in code instead of the reverse, so...
I am confused now 😂
On Windows you have them directly with WinKey+"."
On Linux I don't know.
Thank you, Alain. That's what I'm talking about and the reason for my question.
On Windows you have them directly with WinKey+"."
On Linux I don't know.