On 26/02/2020 07.42, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >>> As others have argued, a signal is not special, in the sense that any >>> function can do anything, including emitting signals, so annotating it >>> doesn’t seem critical, as we apparently are fine without in all other >>> cases.
On Thursday, 27 February 2020 21:51:18 CET Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> Taking a step back... I think some of the reason for the current >> situation has to do with API design. Which of these is easier to understand? >> >> if (map.empty()) >> emptied(); >> >> - vs. - >> >> if (map.isEmpty()) >> emit emptied(); >> >> One reads like plain English. The other is missing words in a way that >> can confuse readers. Allan Sandfeld Jensen (27 February 2020 23:03) replied: > That is how I see it too. It essentially violates Qt code guidelines. If it > was a normal method we would name it "emitEmptied()", so far we have just > lived with "emit emptied()" instead. Indeed; most of the case for "emit" can be answered by a sensible naming convention. Even the case of "functions that trigger signals" can be handled by that, when it really matters. The only problem is that (as a legacy of having had a "keyword" for so long) we have a bunch of signals whose names don't conform to that convention. No-one has suggested we abolish "emit" overnight; so there shall be time to change the names of things during the course of the transition to retiring it. Eddy. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development