On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 14:29:19 WET Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday 09 December 2015 22:47:51 Marc Mutz wrote: > > > const char *ptr = 0; > > > > What we agreed on was for Q_NULLPTR. > > > > Some developers back then were complaining that the *macro* is ugly, and > > that by 5.7, we would be able to use the real thing and didn't want the > > double conversion 0 -> Q_NULLPTR -> nullptr. > > > > The agreement back then also was not to rely on the disambiguating > > features > > of nullptr, because Q_NULLPTR might be 0. > > > > Now we can use the real thing. With real nullptr semantics. > > True. > > I'd like to propose this: > a) no massive replacement or clang-modernize, for the reasons Richard > pointed out > b) which means existing zeroes continue in sources and private headers > c) which means no -Werror=zero-as-nullptr outside of headersclean > > New code should use nullptr where it improves readability. > > Changes to existing code can update to use nullptr. > > But I don't think we should mandate use of nullptr everywhere. Where it's > unambiguous, it doesn't add value.
bool foo = 0; This is unambiguous, just like your "const char *ptr = 0" example, so "= false" wouldn't add value ? Regards, -- Sérgio Martins | [email protected] | 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 [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
