[Development] Upgrading the sources to C++11 keywords (Q_NULLPTR, etc.)

André Pönitz apoenitz at t-online.de
Sun Feb 8 21:47:35 CET 2015

On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 09:08:01PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Sunday 08 February 2015 20:06:14 André Pönitz wrote:
> > > 3. nullptr - On top of the warning, which I wasn't aware about, I find
> > > the
> > >
> > >    code easier to read. It's a mouthful, but it's what everyone will be
> > >using five years from now, so we might as well start it now.
> > 
> > The original discussion was about Q_NULLPTR. You talk about nullptr.
> > 
> > This doesn't make the discussion easier, especially if the difference
> > between them makes a difference to people's willingness to use them.
> Q_NULLPTR _is_ nullptr.

Unless you have a weird font not displaying capital Q's and underscores,
and no distinction of lower and upper case 'l', 'n', 'p', 'r', 't' and 'u'
there's already quite a bit of an optical difference between the two.

Igoring that, Q_NULLPTR depends currently on Q_COMPILER_NULLPTR. You
seem to assume that this is present everywhere. So please submit a
patch removing that and replacing all occurences of Q_NULLPTR and a
big part of the controversy here would vanish.

I really don't like sprinkling the code base with *macros* that *sometimes*
expand to standard keywords.

> > > I treat this as a whitespace error, meaning I correct it whenever I touch
> > > a line of code for unrelated changes.
> > 
> > I'd prefer you didn't before this is the official rule.
> Absent an official rule, it's up to the reviewers to decide on a case-by-case 
> basis.

Good point.

> > > [...] Algorithmic ineffciency.
> >
> > All valid, but coming as an off-topic appendix to a mail a month late
> > in a disputed thread might not be the best start to bring the topic
> > on the table.
> Well, _you_ saw it, so there's hope :)

I think it deserves a thread of its own.


More information about the Development mailing list