I vote for shorter form as well.
But the documentation should be extended with the Philippe's second
example. Trailing return type is rarely required, but we cannot omit
parameters list in this case, because it leads to compilation error.
On 1/9/19 8:31 PM, Philippe wrote:
> I like the shorter form, but keep in mind that when the return type
> needs to be specified,
>
> [] ->foo { // lambda content }
>
> is not possible, and following is needed:
>
> []() -> foo { // lambda content }
>
> Philippe
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:08:46 +0100
> "André Hartmann" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently found an inconsistency regarding empty lambda parameter lists
>> between [1] and [2]. While the first states, that parentheses have to be
>> written always, the latter is missing this section.
>>
>> 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 }
>>
>> instead
>>
>> []() { // lambda content }
>>
>> If anyone has objections against this change, please vote at [3].
>> I'll keep this commit open a while and adopt the Wiki [1] once the change
>> is approved without objections.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> André
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions#Lambdas
>> [2] https://code.woboq.org/qt5/qt-creator/doc/api/coding-style.qdoc.html#772
>> [3] https://codereview.qt-project.org/249192
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
--
Best Regards,
Fanaskov Vitaly
Senior Software Engineer
The Qt Company / Qt Quick and Widgets Team
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
