| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Who maintains dpkg?Who maintains dpkg?Posted Mar 18, 2008 20:17 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227)In reply to: Who maintains dpkg? by dw Parent article: Who maintains dpkg?
They're also adding a specific null pointer constant, nullptr, to the next version of C++ to make all the "but 0 isn't a pointer" weenies happy.
(Log in to post comments)
Who maintains dpkg? Posted Mar 18, 2008 21:07 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] That's just bowing to the inevitable: virtually every vendor already has such a constant, under some name or other (including GCC). You need it for non-confusing overload resolution anyway. (Plus, to be honest, the overloading of the integer 0 with a specific pointer meaning, with the unique stipulation that it need not be all-bits-zero, with the corresponding `pointer context' stuff, was a big mistake from the start.)
Who maintains dpkg? Posted Mar 18, 2008 21:19 UTC (Tue) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] They're also adding a specific null pointer constant, nullptr, to the next version of C++ to make all the "but 0 isn't a pointer" weenies happy.g++ has had something like that for quite some time now. Greg
|
|
||||||||||||