On Monday 09 February 2015 20:10:44 André Pönitz wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 09:36:46AM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > > I find Q_NULLPTR *beautiful* (bautyful is deeper than pretty), because I > > know at some point we will be able to just s/Q_NULLPTR/nullptr/. That's > > not possible with 0 (not even with NULL (could be C code)), so I don't > > see the point in continuing to use 0. > > At some time you will be able to ran clang-modernize with the > Use-Nullptr transformation or something similar. > > Until then your attempts your tic to replace 0 by Q_NULLPTR as "white > space fixes" will only convert a tiny fraction of the code base, > introduce yet-another-non-uniformly-used-idiom. > > Diversity is good in biology. Less so in code.
By the same token, we should stop fixing code formatting "mistakes" in passing, since we could just run clang-format. The difference is that in the in-passing model, the code history isn't clobbered with "reformat" commits. -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
