On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > I find Q_NULLPTR *beautiful* (bautyful is deeper than pretty), because I know > at some point we will be able to just s/Q_NULLPTR/nullptr/. That's not > possible with 0 (not even with NULL (could be C code)), so I don't see the > point in continuing to use 0.
At some time you will be able to ran clang-modernize with the Use-Nullptr transformation or something similar. Until then your attempts your tic to replace 0 by Q_NULLPTR as "white space fixes" will only convert a tiny fraction of the code base, introduce yet-another-non-uniformly-used-idiom. Diversity is good in biology. Less so in code. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
