[Development] RFF: nullptr rules

Sergio Martins sergio.martins at kdab.com
Wed Dec 9 16:06:43 CET 2015

On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:14:00 WET Marc Mutz wrote:

> Arguments in favour:
> - it's the C++ way of writing the null pointer constant these days
> - we need to use it in headers, anyway, to allow people to use -Wzero-as...,
> and it makes no sense to have two sets of rules for headers and impl - it
> can disambiguate code and prevent accidents
> - in some situations, it makes code easier to understand (: m_foo(nullptr)).


The last point being the strongest argument IMHO, since we don't use hungarian 
notation m_foo(0)  hurts readability. 

> Arguments against:
> - it's uglier than "0", and more to type

Not agreed. This is highly subjective, for me Q_NULLPTR was uglier than 0 but 
nullptr feels just natural.

SĂ©rgio Martins | sergio.martins at kdab.com | Software Engineer
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company
Tel: Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090, USA +1-866-777-KDAB(5322)
KDAB - The Qt Experts

More information about the Development mailing list