On Thursday 08 October 2015 13:01:50 René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > and I'm not entirely sure about NULL, for that matter (it might just > > expand to 0, at least in C, but perhaps not in C++). > > Given how NULL is usally defined as ((void*)0) or equivalent, there should > not be any issues in that aspect.
It's NOT defined as that in C++. The C++ standard is very clear about that. 18.1 (C++98) / 18.2 (current) [lib.support.types] says: "The macro NULL is an implementation-defined C++ null pointer constant in this International Standard(180)" And the note reads "180)Possible definitions include 0 and 0L, but not (void*)0." -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
