Hi Lars, Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity
> On 24 Feb 2020, at 12:27, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: > > >> >> 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. You seem to assume everyone used QtCreator as their IDE of choice. That is not a reasonable assumption I think. André > > Cheers, > Lars > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
