To settle this, I am also with Andre and Simon. I’m fine with keeping our headers warning free, so go ahead and use Q_NULLPTR there (until we at some point can require c++11 and can replace it with nullptr). But I don’t like littering our code with macros. Where it’s use makes things clearer as in the example Thiago mentioned, I’m ok to use it, but let’s not go and replace 0 with the macro in places where things are unambiguous.
Once we can use C++11 unconditionally (and thus don’t have to use macros), I’m happy to re-open the discussion about the .cpp files. Cheers, Lars On 11/02/15 07:54, "Hausmann Simon" <simon.hausm...@theqtcompany.com> wrote: >I suppose that it is absolutely unlikely that we are going to find a >consensus on what is purely an aesthetic issue. > >I for one am entirely with André and I do not like UPPERCASE macros in my >face unless I can avoid them. It's aesthetics and I suppose there is >little that will change that. > >As approver I will approve code that uses Q_NULLPTR but I expect others >reviewing my code to respect my preference to use 0 until we can use >nullptr. > > >Simon > > > Original Message >From: Marc Mutz >Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 00:19 >To: André Pönitz >Cc: development@qt-project.org >Subject: Re: [Development] Upgrading the sources to C++11 keywords >(Q_NULLPTR, etc.) > > >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 >_______________________________________________ >Development mailing list >Development@qt-project.org >http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development