> Since this is C++ you should not use NULL anyway. I disagree with Stroustrup on the issue of whether or not to use NULL. (His concern makes sense from the C days when some C compilers defined NULL to be ((void*)0), which is not desirable in C++, but most header files that define NULL are aware of C++-isms and why ((void*)0) is not desirable for C++.) And NULL is in the C++ (ISO 14882) standard. Although my druthers is that Stroustrup should have taken the opportunity to introduced 'null' or 'nil' or something akin as a new keyword proper, instead of as a macro. Alas, he did not. GCC defines NULL to __null, which is more typesafe than using 0. --Eljay
