Re: question about nullptr

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

On 2024-07-08, Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

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

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);

>
This is been suggested twice now but I'm struggling to see why that is
useful.  I can see management wanting one to find all uses of a null
pointer constant to check that they have all been replaced by the
"safer" nullptr, but what's the value in searching for nullptr?

>
We could patch GCC to have a -Wnull-ptr-zero, which will give you a
diagnostic for every occurrence of a zero valued integer expression that
becomes a null pointer constant rather than an integer or floating-point
value (and that isn't cast to pointer type).

Sure.

I once tried to persuade the compiler team where I worked to write a
"tool box" for diagnostics that would have a meta-language in which
users could describe the conditions that wanted to be diagnosed.  The
idea was half-baked so it never went anywhere.

--
Ben.