24 May
2022
24 May
'22
9:17 p.m.
On 24/05/2022 0:57, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
Well, I wasn't "literally" trying to define nullptr[_t], but a practical alternative that is the same type as the standard one when available.
BOOST_NULLPTR/boost::nullptr and boost::nullptr_t are more than enough for portable code. Does it make sense?
But it's not possible to use boost::nullptr in portable code, because nullptr is a keyword.
Then BOOST_NULLPTR or boostnullptr macros are the only choice ;-) Ion