为什么在c++ 11中使用nullptr ?是什么?为什么NULL是不充分的?

c++专家Alex Allain在这里说得很好(我用粗体加了重点):

...imagine you have the following two function declarations: void func(int n); void func(char *s); func( NULL ); // guess which function gets called? Although it looks like the second function will be called--you are, after all, passing in what seems to be a pointer--it's really the first function that will be called! The trouble is that because NULL is 0, and 0 is an integer, the first version of func will be called instead. This is the kind of thing that, yes, doesn't happen all the time, but when it does happen, is extremely frustrating and confusing. If you didn't know the details of what is going on, it might well look like a compiler bug. A language feature that looks like a compiler bug is, well, not something you want. Enter nullptr. In C++11, nullptr is a new keyword that can (and should!) be used to represent NULL pointers; in other words, wherever you were writing NULL before, you should use nullptr instead. It's no more clear to you, the programmer, (everyone knows what NULL means), but it's more explicit to the compiler, which will no longer see 0s everywhere being used to have special meaning when used as a pointer.

Allain在文章结尾写道:

不管这些——c++ 11的经验法则是，只要在过去使用NULL，就开始使用nullptr。

(我的话):

最后，不要忘记nullptr是一个对象——一个类。它可以在任何之前使用NULL的地方使用，但如果你因为某种原因需要它的类型，它的类型可以用decltype(nullptr)提取，或者直接描述为std::nullptr_t，这只是一个decltype(nullptr)的类型定义，如下所示:

定义在头<cstddef>:

See:

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/nullptr_t 和https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/cstddef

namespace std
{
typedef decltype(nullptr) nullptr_t; // (since C++11)
// OR (same thing, but using the C++ keyword `using` instead of the C and C++ 
// keyword `typedef`):
using nullptr_t = decltype(nullptr); // (since C++11)
} // namespace std

引用:

c++ 11中更好的类型- nullptr，枚举类(强类型枚举)和cstdint https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/decltype https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/nullptr_t https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/cstddef https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/keyword/using https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/keyword/typedef

Nullptr不能赋值给整型类型，比如int型，只能赋值给指针类型;内置指针类型，如int *ptr或智能指针，如std::shared_ptr<T>

我相信这是一个重要的区别，因为NULL仍然可以被赋给整型和指针，因为NULL是一个扩展到0的宏，可以作为int的初始值以及指针。

当一个函数可以接收指向多个类型的指针时，用NULL来调用它是不明确的。这种工作方式现在是非常hack的接受一个int并假设它是NULL。

template <class T>
class ptr {
    T* p_;
    public:
        ptr(T* p) : p_(p) {}

        template <class U>
        ptr(U* u) : p_(dynamic_cast<T*>(u)) { }

        // Without this ptr<T> p(NULL) would be ambiguous
        ptr(int null) : p_(NULL)  { assert(null == NULL); }
};

在c++ 11中，你可以重载nullptr_t，这样ptr<T> p(42);将是编译时错误，而不是运行时断言。

ptr(std::nullptr_t) : p_(nullptr)  {  }

假设你有一个重载的函数(f)，它同时接受int和char*。在c++ 11之前，如果你想用空指针调用它，并且你使用了null(即值0)，那么你会调用int重载的指针:

void f(int);
void f(char*);

void g() 
{
  f(0); // Calls f(int).
  f(NULL); // Equals to f(0). Calls f(int).
}

这可能不是你想要的。c++ 11用nullptr解决了这个问题;现在你可以这样写:

void g()
{
  f(nullptr); //calls f(char*)
}

这是LLVM头文件。

// -*- C++ -*-
//===--------------------------- __nullptr --------------------------------===//
//
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//

#ifndef _LIBCPP_NULLPTR
#define _LIBCPP_NULLPTR

#include <__config>

#if !defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_PRAGMA_SYSTEM_HEADER)
#pragma GCC system_header
#endif

#ifdef _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_NULLPTR

_LIBCPP_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_STD

struct _LIBCPP_TEMPLATE_VIS nullptr_t
{
    void* __lx;

    struct __nat {int __for_bool_;};

    _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR nullptr_t() : __lx(0) {}
    _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR nullptr_t(int __nat::*) : __lx(0) {}

    _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR operator int __nat::*() const {return 0;}

    template <class _Tp>
        _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR
        operator _Tp* () const {return 0;}

    template <class _Tp, class _Up>
        _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
        operator _Tp _Up::* () const {return 0;}

    friend _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR bool operator==(nullptr_t, nullptr_t) {return true;}
    friend _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR bool operator!=(nullptr_t, nullptr_t) {return false;}
};

inline _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR nullptr_t __get_nullptr_t() {return nullptr_t(0);}

#define nullptr _VSTD::__get_nullptr_t()

_LIBCPP_END_NAMESPACE_STD

#else  // _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_NULLPTR

namespace std
{
    typedef decltype(nullptr) nullptr_t;
}

#endif  // _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_NULLPTR

#endif  // _LIBCPP_NULLPTR

(使用grep -r /usr/include/* '可以发现很多内容)

一个突出的东西是操作符* overload(返回0比分段故障友好得多……) 另一件事是，它看起来与存储地址根本不兼容。与抛出void*和将NULL结果作为哨兵值传递给普通指针的方式相比，这显然会减少“永远不要忘记，它可能是一个炸弹”的因素。

0 used to be the only integer value that could be used as a cast-free initializer for pointers: you can not initialize pointers with other integer values without a cast. You can consider 0 as a consexpr singleton syntactically similar to an integer literal. It can initiate any pointer or integer. But surprisingly, you'll find that it has no distinct type: it is an int. So how come 0 can initialize pointers and 1 cannot? A practical answer was we need a means of defining pointer null value and direct implicit conversion of int to a pointer is error-prone. Thus 0 became a real freak weirdo beast out of the prehistoric era. nullptr was proposed to be a real singleton constexpr representation of null value to initialize pointers. It can not be used to directly initialize integers and eliminates ambiguities involved with defining NULL in terms of 0. nullptr could be defined as a library using std syntax but semantically looked to be a missing core component. NULL is now deprecated in favor of nullptr, unless some library decides to define it as nullptr.