This piece of code conceptually does the same thing for the three pointers (safe pointer initialization):
int* p1 = nullptr;
int* p2 = NULL;
int* p3 = 0;
And so, what are the advantages of assigning pointers nullptr
over assigning them the values NULL
or 0
?
In that code, there doesn't seem to be an advantage. But consider the following overloaded functions:
void f(char const *ptr);
void f(int v);
f(NULL); //which function will be called?
Which function will be called? Of course, the intention here is to call f(char const *)
, but in reality f(int)
will be called! That is a big problem1, isn't it?
So, the solution to such problems is to use nullptr
:
f(nullptr); //first function is called
Of course, that is not the only advantage of nullptr
. Here is another:
template<typename T, T *ptr>
struct something{}; //primary template
template<>
struct something<nullptr_t, nullptr>{}; //partial specialization for nullptr
Since in template, the type of nullptr
is deduced as nullptr_t
, so you can write this:
template<typename T>
void f(T *ptr); //function to handle non-nullptr argument
void f(nullptr_t); //an overload to handle nullptr argument!!!
1. In C++, NULL
is defined as #define NULL 0
, so it is basically int
, that is why f(int)
is called.