[Development] RFF: nullptr rules

Marc Mutz marc.mutz at kdab.com
Thu Dec 10 14:36:49 CET 2015

On Thursday 10 December 2015 10:25:14 Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> On 09-Dec-15 19:41, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > What part of "author's prerogative" was unclear?
> Unclear is, why you take the time to answer but horribly fail to explain
> why you deem it necessary to enforce this particular insignificant
> language glitch fix.

You were quoting a footnote that said:

> [1] I prefer the short form, but I don't think we'll gain a consensus here,
> so let's not even try

This footnote is in the context of if (!foo) vs if (foo == nullptr).

Quoting this footnote, you asked:

> So why do you try yet?

Which I interpreted as referring to the footnote.

In the context, the question makes no sense, because I wasn't "trying yet".

From your reply now, it seems that you had all of the proposal in mind. In 
that case, the placement of your question was very misleading.

As for why we need to have rules for nullptr: It's a funny you should ask, 
because you're contributing to a project that mandates the placement of {}s in 
minute detail. It's unclear why there should be no guideline for 0 vs. nullptr 
if there is for for() vs. for ().

The rationale, in both cases, of course, is: consistency.


Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts

More information about the Development mailing list