> In spite of nullptr existing now, NULL is still (quite stupidly) not required to just expand to nullptr, but to an implementation-defined null pointer constant, rather than #define NULL nullptr. (According to the N2596 draft).

This is so silly. I sort of get why not (can't break the dork that decided to do

    int i = NULL;
    i++;

)

But, at the same time... I almost feel like this is a "you are being a dork, go fix your code." moment. This isn't the sort of break where someone would see it and go "Oh yeah, assuming NULL is anything other than nullptr is dumb!"