This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [C++0x] nullptr
- From: Magnus Fromreide <magfr at lysator dot liu dot se>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 06:40:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: [C++0x] nullptr
- References: <1268546192.2028.32.camel@sara.home> <4BA46E77.6080507@redhat.com> <1269813166.2249.8.camel@sara.home> <4BB12B74.80703@redhat.com> <4BDD0915.2020301@redhat.com> <1272842221.2000.26.camel@sara.home> <4BDE9A34.2010504@oracle.com> <20100503145508.2529eaa6@redhat.com> <4BDF5632.7090704@oracle.com>
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:03 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 11:55 PM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > ...yeah, I don't understand why nullptr_t as defined in cstddef isn't
> > just being used instead of using the (oft-repeated) __nullptr_t type.
> >
> > This applies to shared_ptr/unique_ptr/functional.
> >
> That's another issue, I think: it's about avoiding including the whole
> cstddef only for that. Indeed, lately - Martin, if I remember correctly
> - pointed out in a DR that essentially *all* the headers can avoid
> including cstddef, and Magnus' patch goes in that direction...
That is quite correct - I wanted to avoid including cstddef just for
that typedef.
Another issue is wether is better use a private typedef or
decltype(nullptr).
/MF