Re: Switch to nullptr?

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 04/28/2017 03:36 PM, Rik wrote:
> On 04/28/2017 08:42 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> > On 04/27/2017 08:01 PM, Rik wrote:
> > > jwe,
> > >
> > > As long as we're requiring C++11, shall we switch over to nullptr rather
> > > than 0 or NULL?
> > >
> > > As an example,
> > >
> > > liboctave/system/oct-time.cc:           char *buf = 0;
> >
> > If that's what we should be doing for correct C++ code then it seems like
> > a good change to me.
>
> Yes.  The advantage is that nullptr is a literal constant (like 'true' and
> 'false') and part of the C++ language so available whenever the compiler
> supports C++11.  And in terms of programming, it makes the programmer's
> intent quite clear and can avoid accidental conversions of pointers to ints.
>
> I made the change in this cset
> (http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/21baad6b35c4).
>
> --Rik

FYI, gvim recognizes "nullptr" and highlights with the constant-color 
scheme when the file has extension .cpp, .c++ and .cc.  If the file 
extension is just .c, there is no special highlight for "nullptr".  So 
it's nice that is already addressed.

Is there a compiler setting that will warn when NULL is used to clear a 
pointer rather than nullptr?

Dan