On 04/29/2013 10:31 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
On Monday 29 April 2013 09:43:55 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 17.16.49, Sergio Martins wrote:
The thing is, I just discovered that the kdelibs style[1] has a little
difference from Qt, it uses braces for one-line if
PathView, like many QtQuick components that you might think of as
touch-oriented, is actually only handling mouse events. So it works because
it will get synthesized mouse events on devices that don't already provide
them. (The upside is it should work the same with mouse and touch. The
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:25:14AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Adding a random file somewhere *usually* isn't a problem. It is a problem
only
if the presence of a file changes the output of the build. And that's exactly
what configure.exe and the include/ dir do: they change the output.
moin,
as proposed on
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/2013-March/001177.html
(and approved on irc), i have now renamed the repository.
this has some (somewhat minor) consequences:
- the supermodule is currently broken, waiting for
https://codereview.qt-project.org/55050 to
Samuel sayeth:
A good reason for using the
Foo()
: x(0)
, y(0)
{
}
syntax for initializer lists after all is to make diffs easier to read
when adding or removing a member variable. The same argument could be
made for permitting braces for one-line if-statements.
+1, that's
On 04/29/2013 10:31 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
I support the change to optionally permit the braces.
+1. Have always disliked this particular style.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 11.00.11, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:25:14AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Adding a random file somewhere *usually* isn't a problem. It is a problem
only if the presence of a file changes the output of the build. And
that's
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 08.54.31, Samuel Rødal wrote:
A good reason for using the
Foo()
: x(0)
, y(0)
This is extremely ugly and should be discouraged.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Thiago Macieira
thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 08.54.31, Samuel Rødal wrote:
A good reason for using the
Foo()
: x(0)
, y(0)
This is extremely ugly and should be discouraged.
If it is about the sum of all
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 08:12:36AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 11.00.11, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
ones can simply delete include/ (and configure.exe) from the extracted
source tree,
They have to know that those exist in the first place and should be
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:37:36AM -0600, Charley Bay wrote:
Samuel sayeth:
A good reason for using the
Foo()
: x(0)
, y(0)
{
}
syntax for initializer lists after all is to make diffs easier to read
when adding or removing a member variable. The same argument could
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 17.24.29, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
Can we do it somehow less magically? Isn't there a way to do it if it
needs to be done, and not do it if it doesn't need to be done?
no, because latest on the second in-source build it would not be
necessary any
On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 23.30.59, André Pönitz wrote:
The rules are ok as they are (pretty much as _any_ set of consistently
applied and not-completely-weird rules). Opening them up only leads to
more review bikeshedding.
It's not that people actively change coding style in old
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 08:59:47AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 17.24.29, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
Can we do it somehow less magically? Isn't there a way to do it if it
needs to be done, and not do it if it doesn't need to be done?
no, because
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:01:51AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 23.30.59, André Pönitz wrote:
The rules are ok as they are (pretty much as _any_ set of consistently
applied and not-completely-weird rules). Opening them up only leads to
more review
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 18.47.33, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
on a personal note, while i strongly sympathize with the diff
minimization philosophy, i also feel quite a dislike for excess braces.
adding to that the in this case pretty persuasive consideration of the
status quo, i'd
On Tuesday 30 Apr 2013 19:44:45 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 18.47.33, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
on a personal note, while i strongly sympathize with the diff
minimization philosophy, i also feel quite a dislike for excess braces.
adding to that the in this
On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 19.51.40, Daniel Teske wrote:
So you suggest that KDE adopt the Qt style and Qt doesn't change anything?
Why do they need to be the same?
That was the request: can they be the same? They are identical except for the
braces-on-if.
I tried to compromise, but
On 01/05/2013, at 2:01 AM, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 23.30.59, André Pönitz wrote:
The rules are ok as they are (pretty much as _any_ set of consistently
applied and not-completely-weird rules). Opening them up only leads to
more
On 01/05/2013, at 2:47 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenha...@digia.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:01:51AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 23.30.59, André Pönitz wrote:
The rules are ok as they are (pretty much as _any_ set of consistently
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Lorn Potter lorn.pot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/05/2013, at 2:47 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenha...@digia.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:01:51AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 23.30.59, André Pönitz wrote:
21 matches
Mail list logo
