On Friday 04 December 2015 02:56:11 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Thursday 03 December 2015 14:14:19 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > That depends on how big the remainder is. I argue that we're relevant > > enough that our own direction is big enough to be of relevance. > > That didn't come out right. Rephrasing: > > Qt has enough market share by itself that we can choose our own direction > and still be relevant. We are allowed to disagree with what others do.
Yes, but only if we know *better*. I very much doubt that more than very few people in Qt development have the knowledge to objectively overrule the accepted C++ authorities. I myself have seen over and over again that how I thought a feature should be used was blown to smithereens by members of the committee, usually rightfully so. So the default should be to follow what the greater C++ community is doing, while *divergence* from that needs to be argued for. Everything else is approaching hubris, imo. > we don't use exceptions ...and look at the sorry state of error handling in Qt - every class does it differently... It's ok not to use exceptions, but not having a consistent error handling strategy doesn't put us into a position to throw that stone. > we don't use underscores ... except we do (grep "qt_"). And there's *nothing* wrong with that! Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
