[clarry]

> Readers: what is your take on it and why?

It's ok to draw a line on what implementations you care about. And honestly, at this day and age, I couldn't care less about implementations that define NULL to be 0 (or something else that isn't a pointer). It's a case of where it's not worth everyone's time to be catering for the lowest common denominator.. instead, fix that implementation or just go download a better one.

If I could make breaking changes to C today, I would remove the NULL macro and replace with a lowercase null (or nil or whatever) keyword a definition that doesn't impose pointless burden on its users.

That said, I'm still very much in the habit of casting NULL to void* when I'm using it as an argument for variadic functions. It's silly, but that's just how we do things...

[mrr54]

You could make a proposal to the C committee to add a keyword `_Nullptr` and to add a header `stdnull.h` which has `#define nullptr _Nullptr`, like they did with bool.

[clarry]

Yep. I'd be happier to work with the C committee if they were a little more open. For example, their mailing list could be public.