Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Macro for null pointer
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-16 04:34:11
2012/11/16 Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]
> > 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.
I also believe this may cause problems. See this discussion on not using
nullptr for the proposed std::optional: