On Sunday 11 January 2015 13:59:56 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > > We may have to add that to headersclean, since conceivably our users may > > want to use it. But we don't have to turn it on for our sources. > > Doesn't that already mean an awful lot of work? Thinking of how many > places there are with "= 0" when an optional pointer parameter is > expected...
That remains to be seen. If the code doesn't become too ugly, we should do it. It can't be as bad as the cast warnings that were proposed, which causes the code to become and remain ugly. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
