Is “delete p; p = NULL(nullptr);” an antipattern?

Question

Searching something on SO, I stumbled across this question and one of the comments to the most voted answer (the fifth comment to that most voted answer) suggests that del

Answer 1

The reason is that the extra setting to null will only help in very limited contexts. If you are in a destructor, the pointer itself will not exist right after the destructor execution, which means that whether it is null or not does not matter.

Got to correct this statement since it is false in C++.

The other functions of an object being destroyed may be called while the object is getting destroyed (because somehow the destruction process requires it.) It is generally viewed as ugly, but there not always good work around.

Therefore, clearing your pointers may be the only good solution to avoid problems (i.e. these other functions being called can then test to see whether the object is valid before using it.)

Yet, a good idea in C++ is to use smart objects (probably what you are talking about). More or less, a class that holds a reference to an object and which makes sure said object is released when the destructor is hit and not add many objects to destroy all at once in one object (although the result is the same, it is cleaner.)