On Wednesday 11 February 2015 00:37:18 Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Marc, I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against nullptr :-)...
Then I agree with André; you need to start reading mails (threads) before responding :) > On 2015-02-10 18:23, Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 February 2015 20:13:12 André Pönitz wrote: > >> Can't you simply wait until 'nullptr' is available? > > > > No. > > > > For a simple reason: using nullptr (Q_ or not) is more expressive than 0. > > And why would i want to throw away information I already have? > > (Oh... and 'auto ptr = 0;' does not give you a pointer. Not relevant to > Qt, but just saying...) While true, this is semantics that we can't rely on in Qt atm. Neither can auto be used, nor can it be relied on that Q_NULLPTR doesn't convert to an integral type. The latter is esp. interesting, as I believe some compilers implement NULL to be nullptr-like even in C++98 (and Q_NULLPTR is NULL if it's not nullptr), so you *may* benefit even in C++98 by using Q_NULLPTR instead of 0. But you can't _rely_ on that. Thanks, Marc -- 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
