On 01/20/2014 08:15 AM, Kinkie wrote:
> the attached patch is an attempt (build-tested) to rely more on
> nullptr in place of NULL.
> It takes from the current implementation, it is just a bit more
> forceful in using nullptr if available.
Hi Kinkie,
You forgot to mention *why* do we want to overwrite the external
NULL definition? Overwriting NULL set by others will prevent folks with
broken compilers working around nullptr compatibility issues. What will
it give us in return, the ability to overwrite NULL #defined in some
header we happened to #include?
Thank you,
Alex.
