How about simply defining   0P  as an explicit null pointer, by
analogy with 0L and 0U?

You would only need it in a few cases (like maybe overloaded
foo(int) and foo(char *), but then you only need explicit 0L or 0U
in a few cases.

In article <60.1230.4352.0N186016@canrem.com> gordan.palameta@canrem.com (Gordan Palameta) writes:
>How about simply defining   0P  as an explicit null pointer, by
>analogy with 0L and 0U?
>
>You would only need it in a few cases (like maybe overloaded
>foo(int) and foo(char *), but then you only need explicit 0L or 0U
>in a few cases.

I think you folks are spending too much time figuring out the solution.
Instead, I would recommend letting the implementors do that.

What's really needed is a requirement (in the C++ standard) that NULL
(as defined in the standard header files) is compatible with all pointer
types but *incompatible* with all integral types.

--

-- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------
------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------