[Development] RFF: nullptr rules

Joerg Bornemann joerg.bornemann at theqtcompany.com
Thu Dec 10 15:02:09 CET 2015

On 10-Dec-15 14:36, 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.

The consequence of this argument is that we need a rule for every 
language feature for consistency. Please, no.

I was arguing that the unconditional enforcement of nullptr is solving a 



More information about the Development mailing list