On 2015-06-18 16:33, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Thursday 18 June 2015 18:16:30 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> If you step back a bit, you'll notice that both <QtGlobal> and
>>> <QtNumeric>, as well as <QtNamespace> are big, fat, mistakes.
>>
>> Why? How can QtNumeric, in particular, be a mistake unless qnumeric.h is
>> also a mistake?
>
> because <QtFoo> is the header that brings in all of module Qt Foo. And
> neither
> Qt{Global,Numeric,Namespace} fit that description. Neither does
> QtConcurrent{Run,Map}, btw.
Neither does <QObject>. Whether or not <QObject> should be allowed (vs.
<QtCore/QObject>) is an interesting discussion, but not one I was trying
to make.
I think we're arguing for different points. It's not the specific name
that matters to me as that there is *some* header which is named
according to modern C++ convention (in particular, no ".h"). If we have
those for e.g. <QObject>, then IMO we should have them for *all* public
headers. Or we shouldn't have them at all.
I agree that having modules and conceptual groups use the same naming
convention is unfortunate, but I disagree that not providing
modern-named headers *at all* is the correct solution to that problem.
--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
