On Sunday 08 February 2015 20:06:14 André Pönitz wrote: > On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0100, Marc Mutz 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.
"nullptr" keyword is only supported from MSVC 2010 and GCC 4.6 Alternatively, one would define "nullptr" as a macro for compilers not supporting it. (instead of Q_NULLPTR) I personally don't think it is good to do that because users may also define it. But if this makes the difference with people willing to start using nullptr, I think we could do that. Note: replacing all the use of 0 with nullptr is quite easy with clang- modernize. I have already used it to add Q_DECL_OVERRIDE everywhere. So it would not be so much work to be safe against the nullptr warning. -- Olivier Woboq - Qt services and support - http://woboq.com - http://code.woboq.org _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development