On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 15:17, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > > On 1/6/23 19:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > Seems to me that GCC code should just use nullptr directly not redefine > > NULL. > > Sure, but that would lead to a huge patch which would rename NULL to nullptr, > right?
Yeah, which can probably be done separately (or not done at all). I was just commenting on the comment that Andrew showed. That comment explain that nullptr is better than 0 as a null pointer constant, which is a good reason to prefer nullptr. But not a good reason to redefine NULL; in code with a minimum requirement of C++11 you can just use nullptr directly.
