On Friday 12 September 2008, Chris Cannam wrote:

> I might as well reply with what my impression is, though Emanuel will
> likely have more idea about these changes so far (since he made most
> or all of them).

> I think we should remove them.
> ... and from the base class too.

I think so too.  I misremember the specifics, and have only an impression, but 
I don't think QSettings needs to be passed around the way KConfig did, and I 
think getting rid of passing it around, and just creating one at the point of 
use as needed is the thing to do.

Also, while we're at it (uh, while she's at it) I've been looking at and 
thinking about this myself, and I think using the name nomenclature 
everywhere in the codebase is a good idea, and I think we should replace  
config, cfg, m_cfg, configq4, etc. with settings instead, so help make it 
clear that this is QSettings and not KConfig.

Calling it something related to config made sense when it was KConfig, but now 
it's QSettings, so let's call it settings instead, and let's call it settings 
everywhere, instead of settings stngs s sgs and sings or whatever lazy 
abbreviations someone might come up with on the spot.

Changing all of that isn't critical, but it would be a nice cleanup to improve 
readability and consistency in the code.
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

Reply via email to