Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:51 PM
To: [email protected]
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?
I don't see the need for nullptr in these checks, on the contrary.
It would make the code considerably more verbose and, IMO, harder
to read.
Martin
