Date: 2001-05-07 04:47:42
4 May 2001 18:53:23 +0400 Douglas Gregor ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
>I think most of us would use NULL if it were truly available, but
>unfortunately that isn't going to happen any time soon. So instead we use
>'0', which is only really meaningful because we read it as NULL (or we came
>from a C backround where typing is willy-nilly). One resolution for this is
>to have a 'nil' that has its own specific type and a slightly different
>meaning. Instead of NULL or 0 meaning 'pointing to nothing', nil would mean
>'possessing no value' or 'possessing an unusable value'.
boost::nil_t would be useful, when someone will decide to implement it:
extern boost::nil_t nil;
>I'd advocate using 'nil' instead of 0 or NULL because it conveys more
>information than 0 and is more portable than NULL. Additionally the
>difference in meaning allows it to apply to a greater variety of situations.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk