On 02/03/2020 16:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
On 28/02/2020 15.33, Lars Knoll wrote:
This is all nice and fun to bike shed about, but I don’t think those
proposed solutions match the scope of the original problem (which
was relatively small). I don’t think a massive source compatibility
breakage is what we want, just because there is one std header using
emit as a method name.
I read this as: let's not do anything. With which I agree.
And most of Qt’s signals are named in a way that makes it rather
obvious it’s a signal we’re looking at (e.g. fooChanged() or
clicked()), so there’s no need for an ‘emit’ in front to be clear.
I don't see consensus here. On the contrary, the majority seems to feel
that emit/Q_EMIT is useful.
+1
André
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
