C++ definition of NULL

[Chad Gatesman]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> > I see what you are saying, but unfortunately, this is not my code.  I am
> > mearly porting it.  And, technically, it should work since the standard says
> > NULL should be a 0 or 0L
>        ^^^^^^^^
>
> No. The C++ Standard does not say anything like that. The exact
> wording is:
>
> 18.1/4
> ---
>   The macro NULL is an implementation-defined C++ null pointer
>   constant in this Internnational Standard (4.10).
> ---
>
> Footnote says:
>
> ---
>   Possible definitions include 0 and OL, but not (void*)0.
> ---
>
> Please notice that integer type is not limited to int or long int. It
> includes bool, char, short, ...
>
> But I agree with you that the compiler should have selected
> func(long) is NULL is of integer type.

Yes, possibly selecting it and issuing a warning.  If you look at the behavior
with one function, it will select it and issue a warning, but when it has to deal
with overloaded functions it fails completely.  Bug?

Chad Gatesman