Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on Why not call nullptr NULL?

Parent

Why not call nullptr NULL?

+9
−0

In C++11 the nullptr keyword was added as a more type safe null pointer constant, since the previous common definition of NULL as 0 has some problems.

Why did the standards committee choose not to call the new null pointer constant NULL, or declare that NULL should be #defined to nullptr?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+0
−0

Probably just backwards compatibility with past C++ versions, where NULL = 0.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

C++'s NULL is broken; not C (4 comments)
However when it comes to NULL, C and C++ already differ in that C allows NULL to be defined as ((void... (1 comment)
However when it comes to NULL, C and C++ already differ in that C allows NULL to be defined as ((void...
celtschk‭ wrote 2 months ago

However when it comes to NULL, C and C++ already differ in that C allows NULL to be defined as ((void)0), which C++ does not allow. So C compatibility is probably not the issue. However compatibility with previous C++ versions surely played a role in the decision.