Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:13353 comp.std.c++:904
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!olivea!mintaka!ai-lab!life!tmb
From: tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Default type of "0"
Message-ID: <TMB.91May9213535@volterra.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 01:35:35 GMT
References: <74609@brunix.UUCP> <1991May7.162035.9247@odin.diku.dk>
	<282980FB.6AB7@tct.com>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: chip@tct.com's message of 9 May 91 17:03:55 GMT

In article <282980FB.6AB7@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
   According to juul@diku.dk (Anders Juul Munch):
   >But I wonder, if we have
   >	#define NULL 0
   >(which is ANSI C compliant, I don't know if C++ is any different), then
   >f(NULL) would call f(int)?! This seems highly unreasonable to me ...

   That's the fact, Jack.  When in doubt, cast.

   >looks like yet another good reason why the implicit conversion of 0 to the
   >null pointer should be disallowed. 

   Too late for that; implicit conversion of 0 to a pointer isn't even a
   C++ invention.  As an ANSI C feature, I doubt it will disappear.

A possible fix to this mess might be to introduce a new value "nil"
that behaves mostly like "0", but is not an integer.