On 28/02/2020 15.33, Lars Knoll wrote: > This is all nice and fun to bike shed about, but I don’t think those > proposed solutions match the scope of the original problem (which > was relatively small). I don’t think a massive source compatibility > breakage is what we want, just because there is one std header using > emit as a method name.
I read this as: let's not do anything. With which I agree. > And most of Qt’s signals are named in a way that makes it rather > obvious it’s a signal we’re looking at (e.g. fooChanged() or > clicked()), so there’s no need for an ‘emit’ in front to be clear. I don't see consensus here. On the contrary, the majority seems to feel that emit/Q_EMIT is useful. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development