On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Edward Welbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > We have a draft policy for lambdas at [0], in a section that begins with > > Note: This section is not an accepted convention yet. > This section serves as baseline for further discussions. > > That section is now a quarter decade old; it's had a few updates since > it was added (2015-02-27), so may fairly be said to be evolving (albeit > it's had more formatting changes than substantive ones); but perhaps > it's about time we agreed that at least its low-level bits about > formatting can be promoted to [1], without such a caveat. > > * [0] https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions#Conventions_for_C. > 2B.2B11_usage > * [1] https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Coding_Style#Braces > > In particular, I'd like to (at least) amend the first exception in [1], > > Function implementations and class declarations always have the left > brace on the start of a line: > > to include "(but not lambdas)" in a judicious place, so that lambdas are > excluded from the exception and fit into our general pattern, putting > the open-brace on the same line as its controlling preamble: e.g. > > Function implementations (but not lambdas) and class declarations > always have the left brace on the start of a line: > > Does anyone object to this minimal change ? > (How long do I have to wait before I can claim lazy consensus ?) > > Eddy. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > The explicit return type rule should probably be changed, as that was for VS2010. And that compiler has been dropped in 5.7.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
