Is there a reason why C++ does not overload time function so we do not need to write NULL?

Question

This is not about me being lazy to write

auto t = time(nullptr);

instead of hypothetical

auto t = time();

I am mostly interested if this is possible, and if it is(AFAIK it is easily implementable since C++ supports function overloading) why it has not been done.

I know obvious answers like: use <chrono>, nobody wrote proposal, but I wonder if there is a different reason.

My best guess is that nobody wanted to mess with C library functions.

P.S. I understand that some might want to close this question as too vague, but I feel that it is possible to give relatively objective answer to this question.

Answer 1

The simple answer is that time(time_t) is “owned” by C rather than by C++: the standard C++ committee doesn’t interfere with the C library unless there are reasons why it is necessary. With C++ you should get a better interface using <chrono> functions.

Also: I don’t think there was a proposal to overload this function. Without a proposal nothing is going to happen and I doubt anybody sufficiently eager to write such a proposal and get it through the process.