In a couple of my older code projects when I had never heard of smart pointers, whenever I needed to check whether the pointer still pointed to a valid object, I would always do something like this…
object * meh = new object;
if(meh)
meh->member;
Or when I needed to delete the object safely, something like this
if(meh)
{
delete meh;
meh = 0;
}
Well, now I have learned about the problems that can arise from using objects and pointers in boolean expressions both with literal numbers, the hard way :. And now I’ve also learned of the not so new but pretty cool feature of C++, the nullptr keyword. But now I’m curious.
I’ve already gone through and revised most of my code so that, for example, when deleting objects I now write
if(meh)
{
delete meh;
meh = nullptr;
}
Now I’m wondering about the boolean. When you pass just say an int into an if statement like this,
int meh;
if(meh)
Then it implicitly checks for zero without you needing to write it.
if(meh == 0) // does the exact same check
Now, will C++ do the same for pointers? If pass in a char * like this to an if statement?
char * meh;
if(meh)
Then will it implicitly compare it with nullptr? Because of how long I have been writing these ifs like this, it is second nature at this point to check if the pointers valid before using by typing if (object *) and then calling its members. If this is not the functionality why not? Too difficult to implement? Would solve some problems by removing yet another tiny way you could mess up your code.
In C, anything that’s not 0 is true. So, you certainly can use:
to safely dereference pointers.
C++11 changes the game a bit,
nullptr_tis a type of whichnullptris an instance; the representation ofnullptr_tis implementation specific. So a compiler may definenullptr_thowever it wants. It need only make sure it can enforce proper restriction on the casting of anullptr_tto different types–of which boolean is allowed–and make sure it can distinguish between anullptr_tand 0.So
nullptrwill be properly and implicitly cast to the booleanfalseso long as the compiler follows the C++11 language specification. And the above snippet still works.If you delete a referenced object, nothing changes.
No. Please maintain a proper graph of objects (preferably using unique/smart pointers). As pointed out, there’s no way to determine if a pointer that is not
nullptrpoints to a valid object or not. The onus is on you to maintain the lifecycle anyway.. this is why the pointer wrappers exist in the first place.In fact, because the life-cycle of shared and weak pointers are well defined, they have syntactic sugar that lets you use them the way you want to use bare pointers, where valid pointers have a value and all others are
nullptr:Shared
Weak
So to answer the question: with bare pointers, no. With wrapped pointers, yes.
Wrap your pointers, folks.