To me it looks like the conclusion of this discussion is: The suggested changes don't have enough perceived, actual and potential benefits to offset the perceived, actual and potential costs they would have.
Meaning that we would keep the convention as is, living with the clashes, which can be resolved by fully specifying where it is necessary. Br, Eike On 10.07.2013, at 10:37, Christian Kandeler <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jul 8, 2013 9:02 PM, "André Pönitz" >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> (a) Drop 'Internal' >> >> I am in favour of this. Making classes public is currently very annoying. > > Making a class public is not something to be taken lightly; you have to > double-check whether the semantics are sound, make sure no hacks that > might be acceptable in"private" code stay around, perhaps introduce a > d-pointer etc. I think it might actually be beneficial to make that act > a bit harder infrastructure-wise than just dumping an EXPORT macro > somewhere; it discourages sloppiness. > > > Christian > _______________________________________________ > Qt-creator mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator -- Eike Ziller, Senior Software Engineer - Digia, Qt Digia Germany GmbH, Rudower Chaussee 13, D-12489 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Anja Wasenius Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
