> On 26 Feb 2020, at 10:38, Alex Blasche <alexander.blas...@qt.io> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> >>>> I’m not trying to make this only about emit. But it’s the concrete >>>> problem we’re facing now, and emit is IMO the one keyword where we >>>> simply don’t need a replacement because it has no real semantic meaning in >> C++. >>> >>> I don't think semantics matter here. It is all about annotation and >>> readability. >> With the same arguments we design APIs. While Kai's survey is inconclusive >> about the actual solution, it is conclusive in one aspect. There is a clear >> majority >> to have sth in place for annotation/readability purposes. >> >> As Kai said, in this case a comment would do the trick just as well, no need >> for a >> keyword or macro: >> >> /*emit*/ mySignal(); or >> mySignal(); // emit > > Can you see us adopting a coding style that enforces the use of such > comments? Otherwise this will quickly change to comments being forgotten > which makes the above suggestion less valuable. Although the alternatives > have no semantics either they impress a stronger coding style than comments > IMO.
We’re neither enforcing the use of ‘emit’ currently. And I honestly find most of the alternatives to be worse than no annotation at all. Cheers, Lars > > -- > Alex _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
