Sent from my Galaxy
(Please fix this if you can - use a better email program that handles attributions and quotation indents correctly. It makes it a lot easier to see who has written what.)Sorry for that inconvenience...for the time being i use blue color to follow-up with an answer.> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 11:04 PM organicoman via Std-Proposals> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:>> Does the standard mandate that dereferencing the null pointer is a>> "guaranteed runtime error"? Because, last time I checked, it was>> undefined behavior that's no different from dereferencing a pointer to>> an object past its lifetime.>> >> So from the perspective of the standard, this would do absolutely>> nothing different.> > Standard wise you are right, but OS wise it's a segfault, and that's > more important.> Fortunately for a great many of the C++ users out there, what the standards say is important, /not/ what particular OS's do. The majority of "things running software" out there do not run an OS that has a concept of "segfault" - the majority do not use an OS at all. C++ is wider than just Windows and *nix.And even on *nix or Windows, dereferencing a null pointer is in no way guaranteed to give a segfault. Dereferencing a null pointer is undefined behaviour, and can cause daemons to be launched from your nose. /That/ is more important.😂 let's exorcis them with a 'delete' expression which assign nullptr (whatever it means 0 or anything else) to its 'reference' argument.