On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:44 PM "André Hartmann" <aha_1...@gmx.de> wrote:
> My request to syncronize both [3] lead to the conclusion, to change the
> rule,
> so that empty parameter lists should be written as
>
> [] { // lambda content }
>
If I were to vote, which I won't, I'd vote instead to make the expression
as explicit as possible, thus requiring even the return type to be
specified. Which is also in line with my view on the auto keyword. C++ is
implicit enough to pile yet more "if this is not specified, then it means
something else" on top. And I personally believe that the whole syntax
shouldn't have been put in the standard allowing for any choice to begin
with. If you look before C99 the following kind of definitions were a real
blast:
functionX(parameter1, parameter2)
int parameter1;
float parameter2;
{
return 200;
}
Beautiful, right? The best part is, there's no need to specify the return
type as well ...
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
