>> Our Qt coding conventions ([1]https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions) >> has a statement on the use of unnamed (anonymous) namespaces. As far as >> I understand, this statement is now outdated.
> [I'll assume we are talking about functions here.] Anonymous namespaces can be quite helpful to avoid name clashes of non-function types. Quite often I see both local functions and other local entities in the same cpp file. I don't want to recommend against moving local functions into the unnamed namespace unless there is a technical reason why we shouldn't. > It would be a change to the worse in my book which I personally would not > like. > Anonymous namespaces are harder to set up and to maintain and produce at best > identical results compared to static' Would an option be to change from: Avoid the use of anonymous namespaces in favor of the static keyword if possible. A name localized to the compilation unit with static is guaranteed to have internal linkage. For names declared in anonymous namespaces the C++ standard unfortunately mandates external linkage. (7.1.1/6, or see various discussions about this on the gcc mailing lists) to Use unnamed namespaces for all internal/non-exported entities. Functions can alternatively be marked `static` in the global namespace. Marking functions `static` also in the unnamed namespace can help readability, particularly in reviews. -- Jøger -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
