使用0或NULL都有相同的效果。

然而，这并不意味着它们都是很好的编程实践。鉴于在性能上没有差异，选择低级感知选项而不是不可知论/抽象选项是一种糟糕的编程实践。帮助代码的读者理解您的思维过程。

NULL, 0,0.0， '\0'， 0x00和其他东西都转换为相同的东西，但在你的程序中是不同的逻辑实体。它们应该这样使用。NULL是指针，0是数量，0x0是位感兴趣的值，等等。无论指针是否编译，都不能将'\0'赋值给它。

我知道一些社区鼓励通过打破环境契约来展示对环境的深入了解。然而，负责任的程序员会编写可维护的代码，并将此类实践排除在他们的代码之外。

我认为有一些论点(其中一个是最近的)与Bjarne在这方面的立场相矛盾。

Documentation of intent Using NULL allows for searches on its use and it also highlights that the developer wanted to use a NULL pointer, irrespective of whether it is being interpreted by the compiler as NULL or not. Overload of pointer and 'int' is relatively rare The example that everybody quotes is: void foo(int*); void foo (int); void bar() { foo (NULL); // Calls 'foo(int)' } However, at least in my opinion, the problem with the above is not that we're using NULL for the null pointer constant: it's that we have overloads of foo() which take very different kinds of arguments. The parameter must be an int too, as any other type will result in an ambiguous call and so generate a helpful compiler warning. Analysis tools can help TODAY! Even in the absence of C++0x, there are tools available today that verify that NULL is being used for pointers, and that 0 is being used for integral types. C++ 11 will have a new std::nullptr_t type. This is the newest argument to the table. The problem of 0 and NULL is being actively addressed for C++0x, and you can guarantee that for every implementation that provides NULL, the very first thing that they will do is: #define NULL nullptr For those who use NULL rather than 0, the change will be an improvement in type-safety with little or no effort - if anything it may also catch a few bugs where they've used NULL for 0. For anybody using 0 today... well, hopefully they have a good knowledge of regular expressions...

主要是个人偏好，尽管有人可能会说，NULL使对象很明显是一个指针，目前不指向任何东西，例如。

void *ptr = &something;
/* lots o' code */
ptr = NULL; // more obvious that it's a pointer and not being used

IIRC，标准不要求NULL为0，所以使用<stddef.h>中定义的任何东西可能对你的编译器是最好的。

争论的另一个方面是是否应该使用逻辑比较(隐式转换为bool)或对NULL进行显式检查，但这也归结于可读性。

下面是Stroustrup对此的看法:c++风格和技术常见问题解答

In C++, the definition of NULL is 0, so there is only an aesthetic difference. I prefer to avoid macros, so I use 0. Another problem with NULL is that people sometimes mistakenly believe that it is different from 0 and/or not an integer. In pre-standard code, NULL was/is sometimes defined to something unsuitable and therefore had/has to be avoided. That's less common these days. If you have to name the null pointer, call it nullptr; that's what it's called in C++11. Then, nullptr will be a keyword.

也就是说，不要为小事烦恼。

    cerr << sizeof(0) << endl;
    cerr << sizeof(NULL) << endl;
    cerr << sizeof(void*) << endl;

    ============
    On a 64-bit gcc RHEL platform you get:
    4
    8
    8
    ================

这个故事的寓意。在处理指针时应该使用NULL。

1)它声明了你的意图(不要让我搜索你所有的代码，试图找出一个变量是指针还是一些数字类型)。

2)在某些需要变量参数的API调用中，它们将使用null指针来指示参数列表的结束。在这种情况下，使用“0”而不是NULL可能会导致问题。在64位平台上，va_arg调用需要一个64位指针，但您将只传递一个32位整数。在我看来，你是在依靠其他32位来为你归零?我见过某些编译器(例如英特尔的icpc)不是那么友好——这导致了运行时错误。

我同意Stroustrup的观点:-) 因为NULL不是语言的一部分，我更喜欢使用0。