[Development] RFF: nullptr rules

Bubke Marco Marco.Bubke at theqtcompany.com
Thu Dec 10 15:25:06 CET 2015

I think it less a technical issue. To me it looked very perlish 
to use zero to mark a defined invalid pointer but C++ is full of this expert 
language hacks. I think it is more a social issue because Qt can look to old fashion. 
New people who discover Qt maybe get the same feeling as I got in
nineties as I looked at Motif.

So I think the question should be how much harm is produced
by this policy? I don't see any except people have to change their
From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Joerg Bornemann <joerg.bornemann at theqtcompany.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:02 PM
To: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] RFF: nullptr rules

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


Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org

More information about the Development mailing list