Re: question about nullptr

Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:

On 06/07/2024 13:54, 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).

>
I don't understand why you wouldn't use NULL.

The arguments I have heard for using NULL sound a lot like
the reason given for climbing Mount Everest.  (Incidentally
the person who said that died trying to climb the mountain.)

If it's a pointer:  NULL

In most cases I would use 0, converted to an appropriate
pointer type using a compound literal if necessary.

If it's an integer: 0

Yes in almost all cases.

If it's a double:  0.0

In most cases where an integral value is needed for a
floating-point type I would use an integer.  Sometimes
a judicious 0. or 1. is needed to force conversion.

If it's a char: '\0'

The integer constant '\0' reminds me of the short poem
about a purple cow.