On 13 Aug 2018, at 18:12, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development <development@qt-project.org> wrote: > > Il 13/08/2018 16:40, Tor Arne Vestbø ha scritto: >> Or: >> if (event->device()->pointerType() != QQuickPointerDevice::Finger >> Gives me all the info I need, and having to type or read this instead is >> worse in my opinion: > > This is actually against the old "non-enum class" coding standards: one must > repeat the enumeration name in the enumerators.
Just because the old standard was also promoting less readable/writable code doesn’t make it a good thing that we should keep 😊 The coding standard was likely based on global enums, and somehow we didn’t account for enums inside classes. Even today https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles#Naming_Enum_Types_and_Values doesn’t mention enums inside classes, and the example only shows global enums. >> if (event->device()->pointerType() != >> QQuickPointerDevice::PointerType::Finger && >> I think we should revisit this policy, and only use it when there’s actually >> a clash. > > Which is always "too late" if we're talking about public APIs, as they're set > in stone. Of course. I’m just arguing that we shouldn’t continue down this road now that we’ve learned that the coding standard produces worse results for the specific case of enums inside classes. > In the meanwhile, I would not work around it -- we need *some* enum scoping > anyhow, and enum classes are the simplest way possible to not forget about it. Enum scoping is already achieved by the enum living inside a class. You already have your goal met 😊 If it’s a global enum, sure, make it a class enum instead of QQuickPointerDevice::FingerPointerType. And if it’s inside a class, and clashes, sure, make it a class enum. But for the common case, let’s prioritise readability/writability. Tor Arne _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
