From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-05-23 22:57:51
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.