Il 30/03/22 15:44, Sona Kurazyan ha scritto:
# keep _qs, _qba, add _qL1, keep Qt::StringLiterals::_L1, add Qt::StringLiterals::{_s, _ba} (https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/402948 <https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/402948> + https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/401308 <https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/401308>)
I'd personally vote for this option -- whatever users use, they have the full set. It'd be super-annoying to have to mix and match (codebase already using _qba now has to import the others...)
I'm not also too sold on the argument that _qs ought to be deprecated. Qt de-facto has always reserved every single name starting in q (or Q) in the global namespace. Whether polluting the global namespace (and/or living "without a namespace") is a good idea or not, that's a sailed ship unfortunately. That just carries over to these UDLs. This is to say, I'm not opposing their deprecation and subsequent removal, and I'm much in favour of actual deprecation rather than hiding behind yet another QT_NO_GLOBAL_UDLS or similar, I'm just saying that "name pollution" isn't a very much convincing argument (for the good and the bad)...
My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
