On Tuesday 10 February 2015 20:13:12 André Pönitz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:53:23PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 February 2015 17:28:09 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > On Tuesday 10 February 2015 15:34:45 Knoll Lars wrote: > > > > +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. > > > > > > Fair enough. But how about allowing people to change zeroes to > > > Q_NULLPTR? > > > > Even more importantly: what about new code? > > Can't you simply wait until 'nullptr' is available?
No. For a simple reason: using nullptr (Q_ or not) is more expressive than 0. And why would i want to throw away information I already have? > Do you really *need* > to use macros instead of the core language? Do you use 'emit' when you emit signals? Lemme tell you: It's a pesky macro and it just adds line noise. So tell me.. where's the difference? Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | 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 Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development