在c++的早期，当它被固定在C的顶部时，你不能使用NULL，因为它被定义为(void*)0。你不能将NULL赋值给除void*以外的任何指针，这使得它有点无用。在那些日子里，人们接受使用0(零)作为空指针。
直到今天，我仍然使用0作为空指针，但我周围的人坚持使用null。我个人认为给一个现有的值命名(NULL)没有任何好处-因为我也喜欢将指针作为真值测试:
if (p && !q)
do_something();
那么使用0就更有意义了(就像如果你使用NULL，你不能在逻辑上使用p && !q -你需要显式地与NULL进行比较，除非你假设NULL为零，在这种情况下为什么要使用NULL)。
是否有任何客观的原因让人们更喜欢0而不是NULL(反之亦然)，或者这只是个人偏好?
编辑:我应该补充(最初的意思是说)，对于RAII和异常，我很少使用零/NULL指针，但有时你仍然需要它们。
当前回答
下面是Stroustrup对此的看法:c++风格和技术常见问题解答
In C++, the definition of NULL is 0, so there is only an aesthetic difference. I prefer to avoid macros, so I use 0. Another problem with NULL is that people sometimes mistakenly believe that it is different from 0 and/or not an integer. In pre-standard code, NULL was/is sometimes defined to something unsuitable and therefore had/has to be avoided. That's less common these days. If you have to name the null pointer, call it nullptr; that's what it's called in C++11. Then, nullptr will be a keyword.
也就是说，不要为小事烦恼。
其他回答
下面是Stroustrup对此的看法:c++风格和技术常见问题解答
In C++, the definition of NULL is 0, so there is only an aesthetic difference. I prefer to avoid macros, so I use 0. Another problem with NULL is that people sometimes mistakenly believe that it is different from 0 and/or not an integer. In pre-standard code, NULL was/is sometimes defined to something unsuitable and therefore had/has to be avoided. That's less common these days. If you have to name the null pointer, call it nullptr; that's what it's called in C++11. Then, nullptr will be a keyword.
也就是说，不要为小事烦恼。
使用NULL。NULL表示你的意图。它是0是一个实现细节，应该无关紧要。
我认为有一些论点(其中一个是最近的)与Bjarne在这方面的立场相矛盾。
Documentation of intent Using NULL allows for searches on its use and it also highlights that the developer wanted to use a NULL pointer, irrespective of whether it is being interpreted by the compiler as NULL or not. Overload of pointer and 'int' is relatively rare The example that everybody quotes is: void foo(int*); void foo (int); void bar() { foo (NULL); // Calls 'foo(int)' } However, at least in my opinion, the problem with the above is not that we're using NULL for the null pointer constant: it's that we have overloads of foo() which take very different kinds of arguments. The parameter must be an int too, as any other type will result in an ambiguous call and so generate a helpful compiler warning. Analysis tools can help TODAY! Even in the absence of C++0x, there are tools available today that verify that NULL is being used for pointers, and that 0 is being used for integral types. C++ 11 will have a new std::nullptr_t type. This is the newest argument to the table. The problem of 0 and NULL is being actively addressed for C++0x, and you can guarantee that for every implementation that provides NULL, the very first thing that they will do is: #define NULL nullptr For those who use NULL rather than 0, the change will be an improvement in type-safety with little or no effort - if anything it may also catch a few bugs where they've used NULL for 0. For anybody using 0 today... well, hopefully they have a good knowledge of regular expressions...
我通常用0。我不喜欢宏，而且不能保证您使用的某些第三方头文件不会将NULL重新定义为一些奇怪的东西。
你可以使用一个由Scott Meyers和其他人提出的nullptr对象，直到c++获得一个nullptr关键字:
const // It is a const object...
class nullptr_t
{
public:
template<class T>
operator T*() const // convertible to any type of null non-member pointer...
{ return 0; }
template<class C, class T>
operator T C::*() const // or any type of null member pointer...
{ return 0; }
private:
void operator&() const; // Can't take address of nullptr
} nullptr = {};
谷歌"nullptr"获取更多信息。
我主张在任何可能的情况下都不要使用0或NULL指针。
使用它们迟早会导致你的代码出现分段错误。根据我的经验，指针是c++中最大的bug来源之一
此外，它还会导致在整个代码中出现“if-not-null”语句。如果您可以依赖始终有效的状态，那就更好了。
几乎总是有更好的选择。
