> On 09/02/2017 14:17, Gerry Boland wrote: > > + for (int i = 0; i < m_closingSurfaces.count(); ++i) { > > foreach nicer > > That's debatable. I personally find Q_FOREACH to be an eyesore.
I mis-spoke, I meant the C++11 ranged for is nicer.
« Back to merge proposal
> On 09/02/2017 14:17, Gerry Boland wrote: es.count( ); ++i) {
> > + for (int i = 0; i < m_closingSurfac
> > foreach nicer
>
> That's debatable. I personally find Q_FOREACH to be an eyesore.
I mis-spoke, I meant the C++11 ranged for is nicer.