On 18 September 2017 at 10:02, Lorn Potter <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The section "Conventions for C++11 usage" in [1] states: >>> >>> "Note: This section is not an accepted convention yet. >>> This section serves as baseline for further discussions." >>> >>> I'd like to push this discussion, because if code is converted to a new >>> base, it should be clear to everyone HOW to do so. >> >> For new code the this should be a no-brainer, IMO. So +1 from my side. > > > It really depends on the code, and where it is. Not all platforms/systems > will support c++11 I suppose, and we might want to still target these. I am > not up to date with all the platforms/targets, etc.
Do we still really support targets that don't support C++11? > But for new plugins that target a known platform that supports c++11, they > can most likely use new conventions. > Unless someone can come up with technical reasons the new c++11 member > initialization is better than what is there now, I’d rather keep it the same > as it is now. If you have more than one constructor that set a member to the same value, it's arguably simpler and less error-prone to use a member initializer. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
