Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:13363 comp.std.c++:907
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!ultra!jerbil
From: jerbil@ultra.com (Joseph Beckenbach {Adapter Software Release Engr})
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Default type of "0"
Message-ID: <1991May10.151833.8942@ultra.com>
Date: 10 May 91 15:18:33 GMT
References: <1991May7.162035.9247@odin.diku.dk> <282980FB.6AB7@tct.com> <TMB.91May9213535@volterra.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Lines: 20


	In his article Thomas M. Breuel <tmb@ai.mit.edu> writes
concerning implicit conversion of 0 to types, or lack of such conversion.
>A possible fix to this mess might be to introduce a new value "nil"
>that behaves mostly like "0", but is not an integer.

	I've stopped using 0 (as pointer) and NULL directly in my C code, 
and have finessed the problem with

#define NIL(type)	((type)NULL)

For me it's the easiest solution, since I tend not to think of a generic
'nil' pointer but of a 'nil pointer of type T'.

	What other reasonable schemes can be used for the same effect?

		Joseph Beckenbach
-- 
Joseph Beckenbach	jerbil@ultra.com		VEGGIES FOREVER!
	work 408-922-0100 x246