Re: question about nullptr

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>

On 06.07.2024 14:54, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>

On 2024-07-06, Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote:
>

If you were creating C code today and could use a C23 compiler, would
you use nullptr instead of NULL?

>
In greenfield projects under my dictatorship, I use 0, as in:
>
   char *p = 0;
>
I was still 20 something when I (easily) wrapped my head around the 0
null pointer constant, and have not had any problems with it.
Once I learned the standard-defined truth about null pointer constants,
and their relationship to the NULL macro, I dropped NULL like a hot
potato, and didn't look back (except when working in code bases that use
NULL).

>
We also used 0 as "universal" pointer value regularly without
problems.

>
I also like to use 0, but I'm not sure I could say exactly why.  Maybe
because of pre-C exposure (B and BCPL).
>

Whereas I spent 6 years programming on an architecture[*] where a
null pointer was represented in hardware by the value 0xc0eeeeee.  I always
use the NULL macro in both C and C++ code.

>
I'm sure you know (but maybe some other readers might not) that that
does not stop one using 0 in C source code.  Whatever a null pointer
"really" is on some hardware, 0 must work in C, including in comparisons
with == and !=.  You can have

>
Yes.  However, I consider that ambiguous, [...]

You consider something that is not ambiguous to be ambiguous?  You must
mean something different by the word ambiguous than I do.