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

[Allan Sandfeld Jensen]

On Sunday 08 February 2015, André Pönitz wrote:
> 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.
> 
What would be the point of macros if they always expanded? The entire point 
and usefulness of these macros is that they expand to standard keywords when 
those standard keywords exists.

`Allan