> On 09 Dec 2015, at 23:29, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
(I’m not sure what is the official protocol to know when we’ve reached a consensus unless we vote somehow, so:) +1 I personally don't think that the consistency gain is worth the cost that’d we’d pay in history conciseness if we would change 0 —> nullptr everywhere. IMO yes, we should be encouraged to use nullptr through the coding convention, but it’s also difficult to convince a whole community to accept being required to use a new toy before everybody had some time to play a bit with it, and like it. So doing this progressively and relying on author+reviewer common sense also seems to me like a good compromise. Cheers, Jocelyn _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
