On 09/02/15 22:50, "André Pönitz" <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:28:18PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On Monday 09 February 2015 22:10:09 André Pönitz wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:58:45PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> > > On Monday 09 February 2015 21:21:12 André Pönitz wrote: >> > > > I don't think the argument of whitespace changes making the >>history >> > > > hard to read carries a lot of weight in a git world. >> > > >> > > Whitespaces can be ignored in git diff and git blame. >> > >> > This sounds a bit like 'whitespace changes in passing are Mostly >> > Harmless'. Which I happen to be fine with. >> > >> > > You can't do that with C++ keywords. >> > >> > Would that be an argument against replacing '= 0' by '= Q_NULLPTR' >> > under the 'fix whitespace in passing' rule? >> >> That was the original proposal I sent. But some people objected to it. >> >> I think we need to at the very least modernise our headers, since some >> users may compile we strict warning options. > >I think there is room for a not too contended resolution along the lines >of >"do whatever you think that's needed in the headers as long as there won't >be a Q_NULLPTR replacing a valid '0' in a .cpp file." +1. I’m ok with us making sure our headers are clean against warnings (if possible), but I don’t see a real need to enforce it’s usage in implementations. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
