On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
Or, as Nathan suggested, drop trying to emulate the literal nullptr keyword and just define and use boost::nullptr_. That's probably the best option. Slightly uglier, but no macros and no name collisions.
Nathan's code sample has an error, it always uses boost::detail::nullptr_t to define nullptr_. After correcting this I'm not sure that the following: namespace boost { typedef std::nullptr_t nullptr_t; const nullptr_t nullptr_ = {}; } is valid and supposed to work. If I'm not mistaken, we know almost nothing about std::nullptr_t. In particular, we don't know if it's default constructible and if it is, will it be equivalent to nullptr. Also, boost::nullptr is supposed to help writing C++11-style code even for C++03 compilers. With a different keyword that doesn't hold anymore, a migration path is needed. I'm not sure it's worth the effort in this case.