On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Browder wrote: > Better to use one step construction (and zero instead of NULL per > Scott Meyers)?: > > std::vector<STEPentity *> vertex_pnts(brep->m_V.Count(), 0);
Zero instead of NULL is a carry-over nitpick from pre-standardization days that I wouldn't worry about. The C++ standard now defines NULL as 0, so it shouldn't matter other than conveying intent (that it's a pointer). What's really needed is for the compiler to be aware that it's a null pointer so it can issue proper warnings about dereferencing one or setting to non-pointer types. The latest C++11 standard addresses this with the new "nullptr" keyword. If we really want clean construction, we could test for nullptr during cmake and add a line like this to common: #ifndef HAVE_NULLPTR static const int nullptr = 0; #endif Or go hog wild and create a nullptr_t class so errors are issued when used in invalid contexts. Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
