From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-18 12:10:01
> [Daryle Walker]
> 2. There's a type called "nil" for a placeholder for unused positions.
> This is confusing from the usage as a NULL pointer that the last reviewed
> library had. The name should be more descriptive. Worse, the name "nil"
> is a macro constant in at least one OS-provider's system headers.
> I've been following the function::nil issues and would like to use a
> boost::nil/null (whatever) as a replacement for tuples::nil. Tuples just
> need a unique type, no value or conversion operators are necessary. And
> there is no point in having a function::null and a tuples::null.
> Thanks again, and I would have modified the tuples submission but no firm
> resolution on function::nil is out yet.
Nil (null) will not be included in function at this time. It is too
controversial to sneak in as part of 'function' (if we were all U.S.
Congressmen things would be different...).
Tuples appears only to need a sentinel type. I'd suggest 'null_type' to avoid
any collisions with MacOS, and move it into a detail namespace.
I'll reintroduce the notion of a generalized 'null' again after I have had
more experience with it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk