I think it less a technical issue. To me it looked very perlish to use zero to mark a defined invalid pointer but C++ is full of this expert language hacks. I think it is more a social issue because Qt can look to old fashion. New people who discover Qt maybe get the same feeling as I got in nineties as I looked at Motif.
So I think the question should be how much harm is produced by this policy? I don't see any except people have to change their habits. ________________________________________ From: Development <[email protected]> on behalf of Joerg Bornemann <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] RFF: nullptr rules On 10-Dec-15 14:36, Marc Mutz wrote: > As for why we need to have rules for nullptr: It's a funny you should ask, > because you're contributing to a project that mandates the placement of {}s in > minute detail. It's unclear why there should be no guideline for 0 vs. nullptr > if there is for for() vs. for (). > > The rationale, in both cases, of course, is: consistency. The consequence of this argument is that we need a rule for every language feature for consistency. Please, no. I was arguing that the unconditional enforcement of nullptr is solving a non-issue. BR, Joerg _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
