According to Stroustrup ( http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html ): "Should I use NULL or 0? In C++, the d

According to Stroustrup ( http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html ): "Should I use NULL or 0? In C++, the definition of NULL is 0, so there is only an aesthetic difference. I prefer to avoid macros, so I use 0. Another problem with NULL is that people sometimes mistakenly believe that it is different from 0 and/or not an integer. In pre-standard code, NULL was/is sometimes defined to something unsuitable and therefore had/has to be avoided. That's less common these days. If you have to name the null pointer, call it nullptr; that's what it's going to be called in C++0x. Then, "nullptr" will be a keyword." Sounds like compiler/standard library in use bug.