> On 21 Feb 2020, at 17:39, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Friday, 21 February 2020 04:59:02 PST Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> Having a keyword-extension to normal C++ is ugly as sin, to some of >> us. It causes >> fair amounts of "wtf is that?". > > That was my reaction when I first saw it, in 1999. > > Over 20 years later, I don't bat an eye.
After 20 years, my eyes simply ignore any ‘emit’ in the source code. In any case, I do understand why Qt added emit as a keyword 25 years ago. But today, we do have IDEs which should be able to figure out on the fly whether a function call is a signal emission (as they already do for virtual vs non virtual methods). So why don’t we move the over to be a tooling problem? Simply highlight signal emissions differently in the IDE and you don’t need a keyword for it anymore. It’s also safer, as the keyword can be forgotten or applied to the wrong places. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
