On 07/08/2013 09:01 PM, André Pönitz wrote: > To recap, currently each plugin's code lives in a namespace FooPlugin, with > non-exported parts further nested in an Internal namespace. The discussed > changes are currently (a) drop the Internal namespace, and (b) lowercase > the outer FooPlugin name to fooplugin. > > (a) Drop 'Internal' > Pro: > - exporting classes currently involves not just adding the FOO_EXPORT > macro to the class itself, but also actually moving the code out of > the Internal namespace (mostly easy, "it's ok when it compiles") > including fixing all signal/slot use (no compile time check). > - removing means less typing in the future > - less line noise > - (marginal) saves a few bytes in symbols
The signal/slot thing is the only one that has any weight at all, in my opinion. > Contra: > - It works as it is. > - Currently its easy to spot in the documentation whether something is > Internal (solvable) This one is valuable, in my opinion. If you see in your code something like "FooPlugin::Internal::bar()" (or, even worse, "using namespace FooPlugin::Internal"), that acts nicely as a FIXME statement. > (b) Lower case outermost namespace > Pro: > - There's often not just the FooPlugin namespace but a likewise > named class. There are some corner cases where the causes (solvable) > trouble, but since namespace and class are different concepts, having > different naming conventions might "help" > - Other commonly used libraries have the "lowercase" convention for > namespaces (std::, boost::, llvm::) > > Contra: > - It works as it is. > > > People I have talked to seem to be mostly on the fence on either issue > (pretty much like I myself) so: Does anyone have a _strong_ opinion? "Strong" would be an overstatement. A lackluster "Doesn't seem to be worth it" would summarize my feelings best. Christian _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
