Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-10-14 13:12:28

What do the boosters think of adding a definition of null to
utility.hpp (inspired by a recent post to comp.std.c++), like this:

namespace boost {

        const struct null_t {
                null_t() {}
                template<typename T> operator T*() const {return 0;}
        } null;
        const int null = 0;


The idea is that anyone who wants to have a null "keyword" (not
really, but close, and maybe better), adds a "using boost::null;" to
some common header file.

As usual, a certain misprioritized compiler prompted me to include a
less safe, worked-around version for the moment.

Also as usual, suggestions for better names for the macro are

Finally, a question: If I don't include the constructor in null_t,
egcs-2.91.57 complains of an uninitialized constant. Is this right?
Even though null_t is a POD, since it has no members, no
initialization should be required. I don't know where to look in the
IS to find out if initialization is required anyway, presumably just
for orthagonality.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at