On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 15:52, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 14:42, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: > > But we could convey the information that this is a signal you’re calling > > *reliably* through other means. This implies that the keyword is not > > required. > > Was the keyword ever required? Seems like it's just a taste difference from a > > qEmit(my_signal()); > > to write > > emit my_signal(); > > The first one can be namespaced, and thus its name lookup controlled. > It also never clashes with a member name. > Its worse aesthetics aside, if we'd had that since the beginning, we > wouldn't be talking about the current clashes > with std::osyncstream.
Hah, except it of course doesn't work with my_signal that returns void. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
