Seems that there is no definite consensus on this, but we will abandon https://codereview.qt-project.org/235167,
since it's not that important for us in the end. It seems that most people are against such a change. It would be good if a decision is taken on this (and wiki is updated) in order to not have this discussion again later. Jan Arve ________________________________ Fra: Development <development-bounces+jan-arve.saether=qt...@qt-project.org> på vegne av Simon Hausmann <simon.hausm...@qt.io> Sendt: mandag 3. september 2018 16.31.07 Til: development@qt-project.org Emne: Re: [Development] Naming convention for (scoped) enums Am 31.08.18 um 11:56 schrieb Tor Arne Vestbø: > I think Simon’s reasoning in the review that spurred this discussion > summarises it nicely: > >> On 31 Aug 2018, at 10:24, Simon Hausmann (Code Review) >> <gerrit-nore...@qt-project.org> wrote: >> >> Simon Hausmann has posted comments on this change. >> >> Change subject: Convert QQEventPoint and QQPointerDevice enums to enum >> classes >> ...................................................................... >> >> >> Patch Set 7: >> >> As excited I was initially with enum classes, I also start to dislike them >> when looking at their use. >> >> The counter example, QQuickPointerDevice::Mouse, is awesome. >> QQuickPointerDevice::DeviceType::Mouse looks worse. >> >> Always scoping leads to redundancy and never scoping leads to clashes. Enum >> classes don't allow us to choose, they force us into the longer names. The >> previous policy of prefixing _when needed_ gave us the flexibility to have >> lean names when we could and longer names when required. For example >> QuickItem::ItemHasContents. >> >> So in terms of naming I find enum classes not truly winning. Perhaps they >> make us more lazy in finding the best names, because just putting whatever >> we have in an enum class "takes care of it". >> >> The remaining argument in favor of enum classes is the type safety they add. >> But at least inside Qt I've often seen it become an anti-pattern because we >> do things in a more low-level fashion and need to cast to an int sometimes, >> for example. >> >> Given the names in this very API, I also disagree with commit message >> statement that the existing scoping is insufficient. (See >> QQuickPointerDevice::GrabState::GrabExclusive) > Based on the disagreement on how and when to use scoped enums, I think we > should change the style policy to: > > - always recommend using scoped enums for global enums > - describe the pro’s and con’s of scoped enums inside classes > - ask the developer to consider each case individually > - and use good judgement in choosing one or the other +1 on this. Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
