> (what is wrong with NULL?) The old definition did not even specify wether it was a pointer or an integer. So for platforms that did not follow the Posix ((vo

> (what is wrong with NULL?) The old definition did not even specify wether it was a pointer or an integer. So for platforms that did not follow the Posix ((void*)0) requirement it was a foot gun that had neither the type nor the size of a pointer. > On top of that "constexpr" and "nullptr" just reeks of C++. Probably because they where back ported from C++. You can still use NULL, since that was apparently redefined to be nullptr.