On Wednesday 11 February 2015 08:27:24 Knoll Lars wrote: > To settle this, I am also with Andre and Simon.
Please don't evade: how is the situation different for emit vs. Q_NULLPTR? > let’s not go and replace 0 with the macro in places where > things are unambiguous. For old code, by definition, 0 as currently used cannot be ambiguous (since it compiled before). Ergo, you're banning replacing any 0 with nullptr in existing code, in passing or else (except where it causes a warning), even though a few lines up you seem to allow replacing it "where it makes things clearer" (whatever that means). For new code, we're not replacing a 0. To me that reads that it's fine to use Q_NULLPTR in new code, even though a few lines up you say that you dislike macros. Can you leave less wiggle room, please? :) 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
