SOURCE Martin Wille wrote:

> Jason Hise wrote:
> 
> >I plan to sneak an improved version of the null developed by Scott 
> >Meyers in with this code in a header called boost/null.hpp, and use it 
> >in the singleton's implementation.  It will be defined as follows:
> >    
> >
> [...]
> 
> >undef NULL
> >#define NULL (::boost::null)
> >    
> >
> I violently object to sneaking in something that fundamental.
>   
> 
If I was really trying to 'sneak' it in I wouldn't have mentioned it 
explicitly on the list. ;)

> I also object to this idea in general. It doesn't buy us much, it breaks 
> existing code, it may cause ODR violations, and it also violates the C++ 
> Standard.
> 
What existing code will it break?  I would imagine it would only break 
code that deserves to be broken in the first place (like int i = NULL).  
Also, how would this cause ODR violations?  I was under the impression 
that the one definition rule required all definitions in different 
translation units to be identical, not that it required that a 
definition only be provided in one translation unit.  And even if 
somehow more than one instance of null ended up being used, how would 
this actually end up causing a problem?  Would your problem with this 
code vanish if I removed the NULL definition on the last two lines?  
Would it reappear if I moved the null class into the global namespace 
(essentially making lowercase null a keyword)?

Please don't take my response as confrontational, I do appreciate the 
feedback.

-Jason


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost