Hi Henry, On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Did you omit the mailing list by accident? I think this question might be > interesting to others too, so do you mind if I post this on the list?
Yeah. I'm having a really terrible year for email... >> if the includes, the headers, and the namespace (basically all the >> code) are supposed to use one style, does it really make sense to make an >> exception for the header part of the docs, when the rest (class names, >> namespaces, etc ...) is going to be different anyway? if the point is to >> introduce consistency, wouldn't it be better to just pick one style and stick >> with it? >> >> (not that I care about this really, it's capitalisation after all, i'm just >> wondering >> about the reasoning) > > We were considering overview articles, whitepapers, marketing materials, > books and other plain English texts, which could be more readable and > approachable if you can write sentences like "The Qt Service Framework allows > applications to discover and invoke in-process and out-of-process services", > or "The main use cases of the Qt XML Patterns module are X, Y and Z", or "the > key benefits of the Qt 5.1 release include several new HTML5 features in Qt > WebKit and better rendering performance with Qt Quick". > > In this context, the names of the tools and modules should be, well, readable > English names rather than source code style names like QtServiceFramework. > These module names would also be more consistent with the convention spelling > of tool names like Qt Creator, Qt Designer, which are used in texts, not code. OK. That makes more sense. I still think that reading the docs for the "Qt XML Module" and seeing QXml* used throughout the code would be a bit perplexing, but like I said, it's not really a big issue for me - so I'm happy either way now I know the reasoning :) _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
