On Friday 04 December 2015 08:49:14 Marc Mutz wrote: > > 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.
That's why we use the mailing list and discuss the issue. Our collective minds together are quite powerful. > So the default should be to follow what the greater C++ community is doing, > while *divergence* from that needs to be argued for. You're calling for "opt-in by default" approach, while I am calling for an "opt-out by default" approach. Since we need to decide which C++ features to use in the first place due to old compilers we need to support, I think we're effectively "opt-out by default". But either way, the end result is the same. > > we don't use underscores > > ... except we do (grep "qt_"). And there's *nothing* wrong with that! Not in our API. Those qt_ functions are private API. The underscore is, in fact, the marker that it is private. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development