How about: "You should order function signature prefixes alphabetically,
but you should not change existing code for only that reason". This will
make things converge eventually and also covers future revelations of
this kind.
best,
Ulf
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
ht
On 18.09.24 17:18, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Which one are we?
>
> That is,
>constexpr inline foobar
> or
>inline constexpr foobar
>
> I prefer the former. And then there's the question of the ordering when static
> is present too.
Since they are identical, from a C++ pov, the order is no
On Wednesday 18 September 2024 13:00:38 GMT-7 Mathias Hasselmann via
Development wrote:
> Why that "inline" attributes at all? For functions and static data
> members the "constexpr" attribute implies "inline" already:
> https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4861/dcl.constexpr
>
> What's the reaso
Am 18.09.2024 um 17:18 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
Which one are we?
That is,
constexpr inline foobar
or
inline constexpr foobar
Why that "inline" attributes at all? For functions and static data
members the "constexpr" attribute implies "inline" already:
https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cpp
static constexpr inline
...sounds right, anything else sounds wrong to me.
Von: Development im Auftrag von Thiago
Macieira
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. September 2024 17:18
An: development@qt-project.org
Betreff: [Development] (Bikeshed, pedantic) East constexpr vs W
Which one are we?
That is,
constexpr inline foobar
or
inline constexpr foobar
I prefer the former. And then there's the question of the ordering when static
is present too.
Data:
we prefer to write "static inline" at 9:1
$ git sgrep 'static inline' \* '!*/3rdparty/*' | wc -l
4199
$ git sg
