4 ms·
That's a fine general sentiment. However, in this context it's a problem if you want to assign NULL to a pointer without a cast, which is why C++ added the magi
by ori_b 3y ago
That's a fine general sentiment. However, in this context it's a problem if you want to assign NULL to a pointer without a cast, which is why C++ added the magically convertible nullptr in addition to the magically convertible `0` constant.
char *x = 0; // ok in C and C++
char *y = (void*)0; // ok in C, error in C++
char *z = nullptr; // ok in C++
therefore:
#define NULL ((void*)0) // Required by Posix C, invalid C++
#define NULL 0 // Pre-nullptr, the only valid C++ definition
C++ can't define NULL the safe way that Posix C does.
I don't understand why it's more acceptable to allow magic `0` conversions than magic `(void*)0` conversions, given that the latter is far less likely to happen by accident -- but here we are.
- rightbyte 3y ago> I don't understand why it's more acceptable to allow magic `0` conversions than magic `(void*)0` conversions In the end you don't have to chose between '0' and 'nullptr' anyways. char *x = (decltype (nullptr)) 0;