2016-07-02 16:30 GMT+02:00 Stephen Kelly <steve...@gmail.com>: > Benjamin TERRIER wrote: > >> But how come a raw loop can be excluding? It should be understandable by >> any C++ developer and, I would dare to say, by any C-style programming >> language developer. > > I don't think anyone can understand or reason about raw-loop-heavy code (see > PS below). I use 'excluded' to refer to people who are not willing to do so. > They exclude themselves from working on Qt code because they can not reason > about it. > > In the same sense, Thiago is 'excluded' from reading and understanding code > which uses 'container.empty()' or which doesn't use raw-loops, because he > would choose to not work on such code. > > There is a divide. The 'exclusion' is self-decided. > > Does that make sense? If you have a better phrase than 'self-exclusion' for > that then it could be useful to share it.
Ok for me if you meant it this way. > Someone unwilling to attempt to reason about the code in that function is > 'excluded' from fixing something in it or extending whatever features it > has. I'd boldly reply to that that if one is unwilling to reason about a piece of code, one should not be fixing it. But I'd also agree that the code should be as readable as possible to get a many developers to contribute. Back to Qt current situation I think that the lack of comments in some parts is a bigger throwback than the code style. And back to the actual topic of Qt/STL containers, I am for option 3 if the project can afford the extra development and maintenance otherwise I'd go with option 4. Br, Benjamin Terrier _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
