0

Pointers present some special problems for overload resolution.

Say for example,

void f(int* x) { ... }
void f(char* x) { ...}
int main()
{
    f(0);
}

What is wrong with calling f(0)? How can I fix the function call for f(0)?

Improve this question

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6

f((int*) 0) or f((char *) 0)

But if you find yourself doing this I would take another look at your design.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

4 Comments

Is it because chars are represented as numbers or?
It is because you can't infer the type from just a zero
0 means null pointer in C++. So it could be a null int* or a null char*. Compiler can't determine which one.
Technically, it's a "null pointer constant", not a "null pointer". All pointers, including null pointers are have pointer type. Null pointer constants are integral constants.
0

Cast it, or don't use it at all:

f((int*)0);
Improve this answer

Comments

0

What is wrong with calling f(0) is the resolution is ambiguous. Both of your overloaded functions take a pointer which in this case can only be resolved via cast.

f((int*)0)

Depending on what you're trying to do here there are other options that are not ambiguous.

Improve this answer

Comments

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.