Chris Robinson wrote:
[..]
What was the reason for this change? It's a static const array why do you want to treat it as a dynamically sized one?
Vitaliy.
On Sunday 05 August 2007 02:23:11 pm Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Because at the time, I was attempting to track down memory corruption, and I didn't trust that the compiler wasn't adding an extra element to the list (due to the last specified element ending with a comma to signify another, and the array size not being explicit). Ending the array with a NULL would gaurantee you can't overrun it in either case.