Antony Polukhin wrote
2012/11/16 Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <
jeffrey.hellrung@
>:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Edward Diener <
eldiener@
>wrote:
I have found something like this to be helpful, when working with multiple compilers:
#include <boost/config.hpp> #if defined(BOOST_NO_NULLPTR) #define BOOST_XXX_NULLPTR 0 #else #define BOOST_XXX_NULLPTR nullptr #endif
where XXX is some local name for my own use. And then use BOOST_XXX_NULLPTR in places where a null pointer is needed.
Would this be a candidate for a BOOST_NULLPTR macro in the config library instead ?
Might it be better to just offer a (albeit imperfect) nullptr emulation if not supplied by the compiler? For example, [1].
- Jeff
[1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/nullptr
`nullptr_t` is also required for libraries (especially for Boost.SmartPtr). So there must be a macro for it too.
And may be we shall typedef nullptr_t as boost::none_t ?
Why a library will need a type nullptr_t while there is only a constant in C++11? Please coul you elaborate? Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/config-Macro-for-null-pointer-tp4638690p4... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.