> Curiously, you didn't list any pro-namespace arguments. Actually: >> We couldn’t make things work in a source compatible way.
>> * connect statements are hard with namespaces. >> * metatype registration is problematic with namespaced types >> * One of our coding guidelines is that you write code once, but read it >> many times. Code written should be as self explaining as possible. Having >> generic class names inside an implicit namespace makes this difficult, as >> information is not fully local anymore >> * class name prefixing is a widely used and understood scheme by our >> users. You think you have countered all of them. But to claim that there were no pro- namespace arguments is just wrong. > But after all I read from the proponents of name prefixing so far, we rather > need to send the whole QtC bunch to the asylum because they've clearly > backed themselves into a corner and can't possibly understand their code > anymore. :) As a Qt Creator developer, I wouldn't recommend making the Qt API inconsistent wiht itself by introducing namespaces into a module now. daniel _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
