Hacker News Reader

dmr would've approved of going a step further - only nullptr, no 0 and (void*)0:

>Although it would have been a bit of a pain to adapt,

>an '89 or '99 standard in which the only source representation

>of the null pointer was NULL or nil or some other built-in token

>would have had my approval.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c/c/fh4xKnWOQuo/m/IAaOe...

Are there any mainstream implementation where NULL is not typed as (void *)? That seems like a choice that would cause so many problems (type warnings, va_arg issues), i wonder why would anyone do that.

Vintage code or code written by vintage coders.

Code written by C++ programmers.

Code written to be both C and C++.

No.

That would have been my preference as well. Either force it to be (void*)0 or, maybe, allow it to be 0 iff it has the same size and parameter passing method.