On 2020-02-21 17:31, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2020 03:21:32 PST Ville Voutilainen wrote:
Yes, and the name change was discussed but rejected.
Do you know why it was such strong against? Was it, "darn it's too
late" or
was it "we don't care"?
Both. I think the argument that Qt uses 'emit' as a macro would have
caught with people at design time. Not so on the last day of the last
meeting before C++20 was to go DIS. That said, it might have even caught
had it only been `bool basic_syncstream::emit()`, because try_emit() was
actually deemed better by some influential people, due to the bool
return type. But the cause was lost when `void
basic_osyncstream::emit()` entered the game, and so we couldn't keep the
stem, we'd have to bikeshed a new verb altogether.
Thanks,
Marc
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
