incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: svn commit: r672395 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include: functional rw/_ref_wrap.h
Date Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:55:50 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:51 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r672395 - in 
> /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include: functional rw/_ref_wrap.h
> 
...
>    5. The definitions of even trivial non-empty functions should
>       never appear on the same line as the function signature. I.e.,
>       the above should be:
> 
>       type& get() const {
>           _RWSTD_ASSERT (0 != _C_ptr);

Should we still use integral constant `0' for null pointers when writing
C++0x code or should we use the new `nullptr' name?  Or (more likely),
an internal macro aliasing one or the other; e.g., _RWSTD_NULLPTR?

Brad.

Mime
View raw message