On 17 Oct 2014, at 09:18, Knoll Lars <[email protected]> wrote:
> It has always been our goal to keep the public headers as clean as > possible. So removing a few more cases where they can cause warnings is in > principle a good goal. The main place to be careful is (as Thiago said), > if the changes make the headers significantly less readable. Completely right. > I’d also like to avoid changes that break our coding style. Of course. The Qt public API is in general very well accepted by auditors. Of course, it is a framework and needs to be considered SOUP (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOUP_(software_of_unknown_pedigree) ). Major attention points of auditors are - amongst others: readability of the code and consistent coding and naming style. And Qt is doing excellent in this regard. So, as you indicate, this should be kept as is (btw, the Qt code reviewing process also scores high). Special attention needs to be given to auto generated code (i.e. MOC) as this code becomes an integral part of the target application. Since 5.3 the moc generated code passes all auditing criteria (missing default switch statements were added). Other attention points are especially the signed/unsigned mismatches: for every version of Qt we need to prove that these are not a problem (a tedious and boring job). Cheers, Kurt > > Cheers, > Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
