[boost] Re: auto_ptr "generic ancestor" idea

From: Hibbs, Philip (philip.hibbs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-30 03:33:17

>> Thank you, that's a good idea. For a smart resource, I'd prefer a 
>> different name to "is_null" - its got a definite "pointer" tone to it.
>
>How about is_nill??   What than?

I think null is perfectly adequate, the term is equally applicable to handles
as it is to pointers, it's just that in c and c++, pointers are far more common
than handles. It could be argued that because -1 is usually the null value for
a handle, as against 0 for pointers, they should be different. However, the
internal representation of a null handle should be hidden, and if it's
different from a null pointer, then that shouldn't be relevant. "Nil" has
definite connotations of being zero, so I would think it inappropriate for
something that is probably -1.

Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/
Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let 
alone those of any organisations, nations, species, 
or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated.