Many programmers believe that NULL should be used in all pointer contexts, as a reminder that the value is to be thought of as a pointer. Others feel that the confusion surrounding NULL and 0 is only compounded by hiding 0 behind a macro, and prefer to use unadorned 0 instead. There is no one right answer. C programmers must understand that NULL and 0 are interchangeable in pointer contexts, and that an uncast 0 is perfectly acceptable. Any usage of NULL (as opposed to 0) should be considered a gentle reminder that a pointer is involved; programmers should not depend on it (either for their own understanding or the compiler's) for distinguishing pointer 0's from integer 0's.
It is only in pointer contexts that NULL and 0 are equivalent. NULL should not be used when another kind of 0 is required, even though it might work, because doing so sends the wrong stylistic message. (Furthermore, ANSI allows the definition of NULL to be ((void *)0), which will not work at all in non-pointer contexts.) In particular, do not use NULL when the ASCII null character (NUL) is desired. Provide your own definition
#define NUL ''
if you must.

If you have the better answer, then send it to us. We will display your answer after the approval.
Rules to Post Answers in CoolInterview.com:-

There should not be any Spelling Mistakes.

There should not be any Gramatical Errors.

Answers must not contain any bad words.

Answers should not be the repeat of same answer, already approved.

Answer should be complete in itself.

Name :*
Email Id :*
Answer :*
Verification Code	Not readable? Load New Code
Enter the above shown code:*
	Inform me about updated answers to this question