If you are saying you didn't know what onError meant, then I truly am astonished. Understanding onError, given all the other onThis and onThat we have in QML, really doesn't depend on the This or the That being a verb. I didn't mean that any of these phrases translates well into other languages.
I suppose it should have been done with "when" instead of "on." ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Konrad Rosenbaum <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 12:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] Avoid overloading of 'error' On Thursday 11 June 2015 07:29:51 Smith Martin wrote: > onError is immediately understood by all sentient beings in the universe. So, apparently either Germans are not sentient or from outside this universe. Might explain a lot about me... At the very least I disagree with your use of "immediately". The phrase "on error" has no immediate translation in some languages - e.g. in German it has to be translated to "nach Fehler" ("after error") instead of the more literal "auf Fehler" ("on-top-of error") or the intuitive (but very wrong) "an Fehler" ("at/next-to error"). On the other hand "onSuccess" always sounds like a toast to me ("Auf den Erfolg!" - "To success!") and it takes me a while to understand why a program would believe in performing rituals for good luck. It might be this oddity of my language, but I really hate this whole "onSomething" style - it reeks of hungarian notation and seems completely superfluous. Either way, since I don't care much about QML/JS - do whatever you like there. But PLEASE do not ruin it for the C++ side! Konrad _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
