On Sunday 08 February 2015 20:06:14 André Pönitz wrote: > > 3. nullptr - On top of the warning, which I wasn't aware about, I find > > the > > > > code easier to read. It's a mouthful, but it's what everyone will be > >using five years from now, so we might as well start it now. > > The original discussion was about Q_NULLPTR. You talk about nullptr. > > This doesn't make the discussion easier, especially if the difference > between them makes a difference to people's willingness to use them.
Q_NULLPTR _is_ nullptr. There's no difference that we can rely or should be relying on, even though I haste to note that you can implement nullptr_t with C++11 semantics in C++98, at the expense of an #include, too. > > I treat this as a whitespace error, meaning I correct it whenever I touch > > a line of code for unrelated changes. > > I'd prefer you didn't before this is the official rule. Absent an official rule, it's up to the reviewers to decide on a case-by-case basis. > > [...] Algorithmic ineffciency. > > All valid, but coming as an off-topic appendix to a mail a month late > in a disputed thread might not be the best start to bring the topic > on the table. Well, _you_ saw it, so there's hope :) Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
