On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 22.53.19, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote: > Hi Giuseppe, > > I'll start by saying tl;dr. But I didn't stop because of your e-mail, I'm > actually referring to the API.
Hi as well Giuseppe
I did read most of your email :-) Thanks for the effort so far.
I'd like to start by saying I agree with Ossi: the test/set way of setting
flags is "un-Qt-ish". I know it exists in a few places, but they are the vast
minority. I'd prefer a regular pair of getter and setter on the QFlags type.
> I started looking at it and it seems too cluttered. Specially this early in
> the process. It's hard to review something that is trying to be everything
> or maybe it's just exposing too many things.
João is also right: it seems you're trying to provide all the power of PCRE to
the user in the first go. It's good that you're exploring everything, so we
know which way we may go in the future, but I think we can trim down on the
features at the first iteration of the API.
The next thing that I find weird is the set of match functions. My first
reaction was to ask you to call them "indexIn", but since they don't return an
index but a match object, the name is fine. But still, do we need a match,
partialMatch and exactMatch? Also note that the boolean in partialMatch is
also "un-Qt-ish", so you'll need to replace it with an enum as well. If you
do, you may as well merge all three functions.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
