On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 4:02 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 5/27/22 05:14, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 3:35 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I'd replace 0 with NULL. If the compiler keeps complaining report a compiler bug and suppress the warning with a pragma.
I'm all for disabling useless warnings, but then you can leave 0 in the code and not bother with NULL. What are you, a C programmer? :)
It *is* a useless warning. The code with NULL is explicit enough and portable, so what is this warning about? That the code is not C++11-only? I know that, and it's not up to the compiler to tell me that.
I wasn't being sarcastic, the warning is useless, yet if the motivation is to work around it (and it is), there's no alternative to BOOST_NULLPTR. We will never get compilers to be more reasonable with useless warnings because there is zero demand for fewer warnings, and a lot of pressure on us library developers to "fix" all warnings.