Yes. The code is equivalent, but it's clear that the second is meant to optional... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

paulddraper on Nov 8, 2019 | parent | context | favorite | on: C++ 20: The Core Language

Yes. The code is equivalent, but it's clear that the second is meant to optional.

The first has no such indication, except hopefully some human-readable comment that the pointer may be NULL.

jcelerier on Nov 8, 2019 [–]

> The first has no such indication, except hopefully some human-readable comment that the pointer may be NULL.

I don't understand. If the parameter was not meant to be sometimes null it would be a reference; not a pointer. The fact that a pointer is used is the "this may be null" indication.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact