Re: question about nullptr

On 7/8/24 3:19 AM, 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.
 

Remember, it was invented on the C++ side, where it has some very useful uses due to overloading.
And then brought over to C to minimize the differences.
Nothing made it manditory, so if you want to make your reader learn more about C, go ahead and use things that are somewhat obscure.