On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 03:50:06PM +0200, Ziller Eike wrote: > On 09.07.2013, at 13:35, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:51:51PM +0200, Ziller Eike wrote: > >> I don't see the point, Qt doesn't use namespaces at all. So going the Qt > >> way would be to remove all namespacing... > >> > > orly? > > Ok, there are. They are just not widely used. So the requirement that > "components" in Qt Creator are in a namespace is already non-Qt. > http://qt-project.org/wiki/Creating-a-new-module-or-tool-for-Qt#03fa1e2be330cf40074c0a55dafe27c4
> >>> to solve the clash problem, there are two approaches: > >>> - use an additional convention (ugly) > >>> - FooNames::Foo > >>> - Foo::FooClass > >>> - remove the redundancy > >>> - Foo::Plugin > >> > >> The clash is with things like CppEditor::CppEditor. > >> > > maybe the problem is the namespace name then? > > the vcs plugins don't have any suffix. maybe the same should be done for > > the laguage plugins. > > CppEditor is not one of the language plugins, that is CppTools. CppEditor is > really the plugin that contains only all the editor related code. > Similar with BinEditor::BinEditor, DiffEditor::DiffEditor. > ok, whatever. it's still backwards: it should be Cpp::Editor. or whatever. but the namespace clearly contains more than only the editor. > > or, because the namespace belongs to the plugin, name it > > CppEditorPlugin. of course this would then produce > > CppEditorPlugin::Plugin … > > That would lead to all namespaces having the redundant "Plugin" postfix. > it's not redundant. it's just noisy. > I just don't know why to go through hoops instead of just going for lowercase > namespaces. These would also be visually profoundly distinct from the class > naming. > It looks to me like the only "contra" against lowercase namespaces that we > are currently talking about is "it's non-qt" which I find arguable. > foo = cppeditor::CppEditor::staticFunction() looks as beautiful as stl ... no, actually worse, as it's mixed. On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:53:30PM +0400, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > 09.07.2013, 15:35, "Oswald Buddenhagen" <[email protected]>: > > yet another option would be "big endian" notation for the plugin names: > > EditorCpp, VcsGit, ProjectManagerQmake, etc. > > Actually, what you describe is "little endian" > no, it's not. the most significant (top-level namespace) bytes are at the lowest addresses (leftmost). all natural number notations i'm aware of are also big-endian. calendar date notations are arbitrary ... _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
