NIkolai Marchenko (13 December 2018 15:24)
> It's not like I don't understand all that. But I am not that person who
> introduced the regression and
>
> a) He doesn't use a compiler that supports this warning
> b) ... and he wouldn't have read it in the first place. (unfortunately)
> c) He doesn't much care about docs
Well, perhaps this little accident will teach that person the benefits
of reading function signatures (or maybe even documentation), using a
compiler that gives warnings and paying attention to its attempts to
save him from his own mistakes.
> Not saying it's correct, just stating the fact that function name is
> confusing and potentially problematic because it doesn't do what it
> states it does.
Aye, there's plenty that isn't perfect, especially in old APIs. None
the less, the Qt project makes strong backward-compatibility promises;
part of the price of that is that we don't lightly change APIs, even
when they aren't ideally named.
Eddy.
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
