Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Macro for null pointer
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-16 02:03:23
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> And may be we shall typedef nullptr_t as boost::none_t ?
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I'm not really sure that I'm against
it either. I just wonder if there might be some weird situations where it
could cause ambiguity or other problems. For instance, could this maybe
cause a problem or questionable/unintuitive behavior with something like
optional<int*>? Perhaps that's a weird case, but without some investigation
I'm willing to bet there might be some more subtleties.
-- -Matt Calabrese
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk