> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: svn commit: r672395 - in > /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include: functional rw/_ref_wrap.h > ... > 5. The definitions of even trivial non-empty functions should > never appear on the same line as the function signature. I.e., > the above should be: > > type& get() const { > _RWSTD_ASSERT (0 != _C_ptr);
Should we still use integral constant `0' for null pointers when writing C++0x code or should we use the new `nullptr' name? Or (more likely), an internal macro aliasing one or the other; e.g., _RWSTD_NULLPTR? Brad.
