2 ms·
C++ hasn't done it this way for nullptr or nullopt, why would it do it for an explicit uninitialized?
by gpderetta 1y ago
C++ hasn't done it this way for nullptr or nullopt, why would it do it for an explicit uninitialized?
- trealira 1y agoI guess nullptr was put in there because because because "#define NULL 0" had some bad consequences for C++ and they needed a replacement. std::nullopt doesn't seem so different to what I was talking about; I guess it's just less verbose. When I wrote that, I was thinking of things like "std::is_same<T1, T2>::value" being there.