On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 1:20 PM Glen Fernandes
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
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
of 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