Boost logo

Boost :

From: jk_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-06-08 23:28:54

8 Jun 2001 21:14:00 +0400 Beman Dawes ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
>One further problem is that when it is discovered that a library contains a
>nil or null or other 0 replacement, all further discussion is about that
>replacement. The library itself recedes into the background.
>It seems to me that 0 replacements polarize people with hardly any
>benefit. You might be able to defuse some of the discussion by changing
>the name to something less likely to act as a lightening rod. But that is
>about the best you can hope for.

IMHO it is quite unimportant what name literal has - nil, null, nothing or
smth. What is important, it is *type* boost::nil_t; then one could write

namespace boost {
        struct nil_t { nil_t() {} };
        const nil_t nil;
using boost::nil_t;

int f(nil_t);

namespace {
        const boost::nil_t null;
        const boost::nil_t nothing;
        const boost::nil_t nobody;


The name "nil" is totally unimportant.


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