On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:14:00 WET Marc Mutz wrote: > Arguments in favour: > - it's the C++ way of writing the null pointer constant these days > - we need to use it in headers, anyway, to allow people to use -Wzero-as..., > and it makes no sense to have two sets of rules for headers and impl - it > can disambiguate code and prevent accidents > - in some situations, it makes code easier to understand (: m_foo(nullptr)).
Agreed. The last point being the strongest argument IMHO, since we don't use hungarian notation m_foo(0) hurts readability. > Arguments against: > - it's uglier than "0", and more to type Not agreed. This is highly subjective, for me Q_NULLPTR was uglier than 0 but nullptr feels just natural. Regards, -- Sérgio Martins | sergio.mart...@kdab.com | Software Engineer Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company Tel: Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090, USA +1-866-777-KDAB(5322) KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development