Ah yes, because you write functions taking references to avoid having to
check for null, and then the language adds null references so you have to
add checks everywhere.

That's the very opposite of useful.

Em qua., 3 de abr. de 2024 19:57, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via
Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> escreveu:

> Back in 1993, they were talking about null references:
>
> http://www.virjacode.com/cxxproposals/compstdcxx/article86414
>
> If we were to have null references now 31 years later, here's how I'd do
> them:
>
> int &myref = *nullptr;
>
> Normally it's undefined behaviour to dereference a nullptr, but if you
> dereference the compile-time constant expression 'nullptr', you get
> the null reference. And so then if you write a function that takes a
> reference, you can check if it's a null reference as follows:
>
> void Func(int &arg)
> {
> if ( arg == *nullptr ) return;
> }
>
> You can use a static_cast to get a null reference of a specific type:
>
> static_cast<MyClass&>( *nullptr );
>
> As Pascual said back in 1993, this would be useful for a method that
> returns an element from a container:
>
> Y& X::operator[](size_t index){...}
>
> If your index is out of range, the method returns a null reference.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>