Re: nullptr vs 0

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-05-29 01:34:30

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 1:20 PM Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022, Emil Dotchevski  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 5:59 PM Peter Dimov
>> 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.
>>
>> Do we have an official Boost policy on "fixing" warnings? E.g. what sort
of
>> warnings should or should not be fixed?
>
> As far as I know, we don't. We require code to be well-defined and
correct. If the code is correct and well-defined, the thing motivating me
to change correct code to prevent a warning is the convenience for the user.
>
> But only in so far as changing the code does not compromise its
performance or maintainability, etc.
>
> BOOST_NULLPTR being added to Config isn't a mandate to all maintainers to
use it. Just a choice.
>
> If it exists, I would use it. If it exists in Config it means I won't
have to duplicate the following lines in a handful of libraries:
>
> if !defined(BOOST_NO_CXX11_NULLPTR)
> #define BOOST_NULLPTR nullptr
> #else
> #define BOOST_NULLPTR 0
> #endif
>
> Unless someone comes up with an idea I find more appealing. (Which hasn't
happened yet in this thread)
>
> Glen

>
+1