Date: 2001-06-08 16:41:55
If "nil" and "null" are too widely defined, how about "naught"?
Or is there too much potential for humor in having a naught_t type?
--- In boost_at_y..., Chris Little <cslittle_at_r...> wrote:
> More bad news. Apple has a number of types that look like pointers
> after a series of typedefs are unsigned longs. Since these types
> treated like objects, most code initializes them to nil.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Douglas Gregor [mailto:gregod_at_c...]
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 2:48 PM
> > To: boost_at_y...
> > Subject: Re: [boost] boost::nil
> > On Friday 08 June 2001 02:26 pm, you wrote:
> > > Slightly different case.
> > >
> > > It is not only that there is a file that defines nil, it
> > that there are a
> > > large number of files that depend on that definition. For
> > example, the GUI
> > > class library we use on the Mac, for legacy reasons, uses
> > nil instead of
> > > NULL in default parameters, to initialize variables, etc. ...
> > >
> > > Chris
> > Unless they actually use it to initialize something other
> > than a pointer, it
> > doesn't matter.
> > Doug
> > To unsubscribe, send email to:
> > <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_y...>
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk