Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote in message
news:7p0mu0$36f$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
> Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
>  >For compatibility with C.  This issue is apparently not considered
enough
>  >of a problem to warrant doing it differently than C does.
>
> But C++ *does* do things differently than C does: C allows `(void *)0'
> as a null pointer constant, whereas C++ does not.
>
> As far as I can tell there is no good reason for this.

I remember reading about this years ago.  I don't remember what the argument
was but I do remember agree with the basis of the argument.  I thought what
they decided to do wasn't a good idea either.

Greg Brewer




[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]