On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 09:08:01PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Sunday 08 February 2015 20:06:14 André Pönitz wrote: > > > 3. nullptr - On top of the warning, which I wasn't aware about, I find > > > the > > > > > > code easier to read. It's a mouthful, but it's what everyone will be > > >using five years from now, so we might as well start it now. > > > > The original discussion was about Q_NULLPTR. You talk about nullptr. > > > > This doesn't make the discussion easier, especially if the difference > > between them makes a difference to people's willingness to use them. > > Q_NULLPTR _is_ nullptr.
Unless you have a weird font not displaying capital Q's and underscores, and no distinction of lower and upper case 'l', 'n', 'p', 'r', 't' and 'u' there's already quite a bit of an optical difference between the two. Igoring that, Q_NULLPTR depends currently on Q_COMPILER_NULLPTR. You seem to assume that this is present everywhere. So please submit a patch removing that and replacing all occurences of Q_NULLPTR and a big part of the controversy here would vanish. I really don't like sprinkling the code base with *macros* that *sometimes* expand to standard keywords. > > > I treat this as a whitespace error, meaning I correct it whenever I touch > > > a line of code for unrelated changes. > > > > I'd prefer you didn't before this is the official rule. > > Absent an official rule, it's up to the reviewers to decide on a case-by-case > basis. Good point. > > > [...] Algorithmic ineffciency. > > > > All valid, but coming as an off-topic appendix to a mail a month late > > in a disputed thread might not be the best start to bring the topic > > on the table. > > Well, _you_ saw it, so there's hope :) I think it deserves a thread of its own. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
