[Development] RFF: nullptr rules

Milian Wolff milian.wolff at kdab.com
Thu Dec 10 14:39:17 CET 2015

On Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2015 14:36:49 CET Marc Mutz wrote:


> 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.

This, for me, is btw. a very strong argument in favor of requesting nullptr 

Personally, I'd be in favor of running clang-modernize on Qt and asking people 
to use nullptr in new code.

Reviewing the patch of clang-modernize is easy btw. It either compiles and is 
good, or it doesn't and needs work. None of this needs manual review.
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff at kdab.com | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5903 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20151210/01840ac7/attachment.bin>

More information about the Development mailing list