On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Thiago A. Corrêa <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Oh, I thought it was discussed previously, but since you mentioned, >> baudRate would be nicer. > > > Yes, I had proposed it back then to Denis iirc, so we did discuss it. Cannot > recall whether Denis did not like the idea or we were lazy buggers to > implement it. :-) > > By the way, I am not sure I understand the proposal yet fully. I tend to > think that "BaudRate" is better for the enumeration type name, but I would > not suggest that for the concrete values. I would personally prefer > "Baud9600", and so forth for those. What do you think? >
IMHO we could drop the enumeration from the public API. It's not used for anything, not sure if it's used in the implementation either, and change the method to baudRate/setBaudRate. I'm not native english speaker but I think writting it as baudrate (ie, as a single word) is common[1], and therefore I guess it wouldn't be against the convention to call it baudrate/setBaudrate if that form os prefered. If we keep the enumeration, then Baud9600 isn't a bad name. [1] I've looked up an Oxford Semi datasheet I have here and it's written only as baud rate, but another one from Atmel has both forms. Kind Regards Thiago A. Correa _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
