_pointer_type
>
> IS NOT, and compiler, issuing error messages will help you to avoid some
> troubles.
>
>
> From: René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 5:51 PM
> To: Pocheptsov Timur
>
On Thursday 08 October 2015 11:55:52 André Somers wrote:
[...]
> Nowadays, for code that you won't need to compile with non C++/11
> complient compilers, I'd recommend to use nullptr instead. At least,
> nullptr will always be interpretted as a pointer.
[...]
Seconded. I'd go so far as to use
Subject: Re: [Development] 0 vs. NULL
On Friday October 09 2015 13:58:37 Pocheptsov Timur wrote:
> if NULL was (void *)0 - you'd have a compilation error in C++, since there is
> no such implicit conversion.
>
> And yes, void * in C++ can be indeed considered generic, because you can
On Friday October 09 2015 13:58:37 Pocheptsov Timur wrote:
> if NULL was (void *)0 - you'd have a compilation error in C++, since there is
> no such implicit conversion.
>
> And yes, void * in C++ can be indeed considered generic, because you can do
> this:
>
> int * p = ...
> void * pv = p;
On 2015-10-09 11:51, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Friday October 09 2015 13:58:37 Pocheptsov Timur wrote:
>> And yes, void * in C++ can be indeed considered generic, because
>> you can do this:
>>
>> int * p = ... void * pv = p;
>
> Coming from C I have some trouble with that concept of generic
On Thursday October 08 2015 09:52:14 Welbourne Edward wrote:
> > A bit of a generic question, [...] about the preferred use of 0 instead of
> > NULL.
>
> One of the habits of C++ that a C programmer always finds weird.
Yeah, especially when they're used to being annoyed about all those
> A bit of a generic question, [...] about the preferred use of 0 instead of
> NULL.
One of the habits of C++ that a C programmer always finds weird.
> Now I remembered having to modify some of my own code to use NULL
> instead of 0 to avoid crashing, on 64bit (capable) hardware. I cannot
>
Op 8-10-2015 om 11:27 schreef René J.V. Bertin:
> Hi,
>
> A bit of a generic question, for my personal education. I saw a comment in a
> code review recently (one related to making Qt build on OS X 10.11, probably)
> about the preferred use of 0 instead of NULL.
>
> I didn't realise at first why
>>> Did I simply hit a "feature" Qt won't ever encounter because it
>>> doesn't use C (nor va_arg)?
is what I was referring back to when I said:
>> Well, it's nice to hear we don't use var-args.
Perhaps I misunderstood ! I'm relatively new to Qt myself.
On grep-ing code, I see we do in fact
On Thursday October 08 2015 11:12:35 Welbourne Edward wrote:
> Perhaps I misunderstood ! I'm relatively new to Qt myself.
Your email address suggested otherwise ;)
> I'm not convinced I want to rely on that.
> Some compilers might be better at it than others ...
You'd probably better not
10 matches
Mail list logo
