On 2015-02-09 15:05, Marc Mutz wrote: > 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. >> >> [...] >> 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.
As a related anecdote, I actually have code bases (okay, personal code bases, but still) that run format checking *as a pre-commit hook*. It's quite nice to have a code base that is completely style-consistent (as much so anyway as tools can validate) :-). (I suspect there are Python code bases for which this is also true.) I've also worked on non-private code bases that have been occasionally audited with code formatting tools. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
