On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Edward Welbourne <edward.welbou...@qt.io<mailto:edward.welbou...@qt.io>> wrote: >> We have a draft policy for lambdas at [0], in a section that begins with >> >> Note: This section is not an accepted convention yet. >> This section serves as baseline for further discussions. >> >> That section is now a quarter decade old; it's had a few updates since >> it was added (2015-02-27), so may fairly be said to be evolving (albeit >> it's had more formatting changes than substantive ones); but perhaps >> it's about time we agreed that at least its low-level bits about >> formatting can be promoted to [1], without such a caveat. >> >> * [0] https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions#Conventions_for_C.2B.2B11_usage >> * [1] https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Coding_Style#Braces >> >> In particular, I'd like to (at least) amend the first exception in [1], >> >> Function implementations and class declarations always have the left >> brace on the start of a line: >> >> to include "(but not lambdas)" in a judicious place, so that lambdas are >> excluded from the exception and fit into our general pattern, putting >> the open-brace on the same line as its controlling preamble: e.g. >> >> Function implementations (but not lambdas) and class declarations >> always have the left brace on the start of a line: >> >> Does anyone object to this minimal change ?
Mark Gaiser (18 August 2017 16:11) added: > The explicit return type rule should probably be changed, as that was > for VS2010. And that compiler has been dropped in 5.7. Having heard no opposition to this in a month (and the same topic having come up again) I have now implemented the two changes mentioned above. * [0] https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=Coding_Conventions&type=revision&diff=31578&oldid=31083 * [1] https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=Qt_Coding_Style&type=revision&diff=31577&oldid=31425 Eddy. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development