Re: question about nullptr

On 08.07.2024 09:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2024-07-07, Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

I find myself completely out of step with many posters here about
"explicit code" should look like.  I think
>
  char *p = 0;
>
is explicit enough and, in fact, I consider it a plus point if someone
reading it goes "hey, what's going on here?" and ends up learning that 0
is null pointer constant in C.

 
And if that person is on the C or C++ langauge committee, that bit of
learning could just prevent a superfluous non-invention like nullptr.

What's superfluous to one is useful for others (e.g. for grep'ing
occurrences of a null-pointer value in source codes); if it's not
defined in a standard it gets explicitly defined individually, and
then likely in different (non-uniform, non-standard) ways.

To me it's more likely that because of that it had been deliberately
added to support such desires, and less likely that the C-standards
folks need to learn "C" and wouldn't know what 0 as a pointer value
would mean or that it has a clear semantic in such pointer contexts.

Janis