[Development] 0 vs. NULL

[René J. V. Bertin]

Thiago Macieira wrote:

I missed this message.


> "The macro NULL is an implementation-defined C++ null pointer constant in this
> International Standard(180)"
> 
> And the note reads
> 
> "180)Possible definitions include 0 and 0L, but not (void*)0."

Does the note say why or is it just an arbitrary decision? 0 and 0L do not look 
like pointer constants for someone coming from C, whereas (void*)0 does. I 
thought void* was the generic pointer even in C++ (at least the "more 
traditional" implementations)?

R