On 9 January 2015 at 22:53, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > On Friday 09 January 2015 22:15:25 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: >> On 9 January 2015 at 20:19, André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: >> > C++ 'nullptr' only gives a benefit over '0' in the rare cases where it >> > helps for disambiguation. I would not really like a policy encouraging >> > 'nullptr' when '0' is just fine, but at least that would be tolerable. >> >> Not only that, compilers are starting to complain about 0 used in >> place of NULL / nullptr, for instance GCC under >> -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant. > > We may have to add that to headersclean, since conceivably our users may want > to use it. But we don't have to turn it on for our sources.
Doesn't that already mean an awful lot of work? Thinking of how many places there are with "= 0" when an optional pointer parameter is expected... -- Giuseppe D'Angelo _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
