On Wednesday, 21 February 2024 09:19:19 PST Mathias Hasselmann via Development wrote: > How that? > > https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions#Things_to_avoid says: > > "Avoid the use of anonymous namespaces in favor of the static keyword if > possible."
Back in the day, this was a better suggestion. Now, it's equivalent so it's distinction without a difference. > While > https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Rs-unnamed2 > says: > > "Consider putting every definition in an implementation source file in > an unnamed namespace [...]" > > Either I am missunderstanding something, or Qt Coding Conventions and > C++ Core Guidelines strongly disagree on whether to use anonymous > namespaces. Fair. But I disagree with SF22 and will continue to use statics. There's nothing wrong with them. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
