> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Nurmi J-P > Sent: 16. september 2013 12:49 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Development] Namespaces (was: Qt Platform Extras) > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:56 AM, Sze Howe Koh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11 September 2013 01:07, Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Thiago Macieira >>> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On terça-feira, 10 de setembro de 2013 22:31:53, Sze Howe Koh wrote: >>>>> On 10 September 2013 14:27, Knoll Lars <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>>>> Ok, let's use QtWin for the namespace. For the module itself it >>>>>> makes IMO to keep the 'Extras' in the name. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Lars >>>>> >>>>> QtWin or QWin? >>>> >>>> QtWin, it's a namespace. >>> >>> >>> I believe he is aware of that... >>> >>> I think, Sze please correct me if I am wrong, he just wanted to >>> make sure because there was several emails last year about QFoo or >>> QtFoo for the namespace, and it seemed that the suboptimal naming >>> was chosen for other reasons. >> >> Laszlo is correct. >> >> Before Qt 5 was released, most public namespaces had the "QFoo" format >> -- QSsl, QDBus, QAudio, etc. A few had the "QtFoo format -- >> QtMultimedia::MetaData (unreleased), QtMultimedia (unreleased), and >> QtConcurrent. I suggested making them uniform. [1] >> >> Lars said that he preferred "QFoo" -> "QtFoo", but that change was the >> much more intrusive one. Qt 5 was close to Beta 2 at the time, so he >> chose the lower-risk "QtFoo" -> "QFoo". [2] >> >> As of Qt 5.1, all public namespaces are "QFoo", except "Qt" and >> "QtConcurrent". Thiago blocked the latter on the basis that (i) >> development on that module has stopped, and (ii) QtConcurrent is quite >> different from all the other namespaces anyway. [3] >> >> With all that in mind, do we want "QtWin" or "QWin"? The benefit of >> "QWin" is consistency with existing conventions; the downside is having >> to wait till Qt 6 if we want to switch to the preferred "QtFoo". >> "QtWin" has the benefit of introducing users to the preferred naming >> convention now (and a smaller list of namespace changes if/when the >> change occurs), at the cost of introducing more inconsistencies. >> >> I vote for "QWin" for consistency, and I'm not sure that an extra >> ':%s/QWin::/QtWin::/g' will make a difference to users if they're >> doing the same for all other namespaces in Qt 6. > > Consistent or not, do we want to introduce more namespaces with > suboptimal names? IMHO it would be better to go for the optimal naming > with new namespaces, and eventually fix the old remaining ones in Qt 6. > That would give us cute names and less changes needed in the future > while porting to Qt 6. > > One could also argue whether for example the QSsl namespace is that > bad after all. The scope of that particular namespace is to provide > enums for a small set of SSL classes, whereas namespaces like QtWin > and QtMac are module-wide. To me it would make sense to enforce the > QtFoo naming convention for such module-wide enums, but still allow > QFoo style naming for "targeted" namespaces. > I think I agree with JP. AFAICS, no other module is using module-wide namespaces, so it would not be inconsistent to name it QtFoo.
Also, using QtFoo makes it consistent with the module-wide include: #include <QtFoo> (And it cannot be #include <QFoo> since that would be inconsistent with our other module-wide includes) Jan Arve _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
