Re: nullptr vs 0

From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-05-23 19:59:31

On 22/05/2022 2:59, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Compilers apparently are warning on the use of 0 as a null pointer
> constant, suggesting we use nullptr instead. But compilers don't know
> that we support C++03 where nullptr isn't a thing.
> 
> Case in point: https://github.com/boostorg/throw_exception/pull/22
> 
> ifdef-ing every use of nullptr is unwieldy, so maybe we need
> BOOST_NULLPTR added to Boost.Config? That would expand to
> nullptr when it's supported, and 0 otherwise.

Maybe we need the boost::nullptr_t type, emulated in C++ mode and 
"typedef decltype(nullptr) nullptr_t;" in compilers that support it...

And if nullptr/nullptr_t is provided by Boost.Config, without any 
heavy-include need, that would be perfect ;-)

Best,

Ion