[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-commits
Subject:    Re: kdenonbeta/kdom (silent)
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2005-10-04 15:05:09
Message-ID: 200510041505.09934.frans.englich () telia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 03 October 2005 23:14, Nikolas Zimmermann wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2005 20:04, Frans Englich wrote:
> > I have one argument for changing that style: consistency. I don't want
> > KDOM to be an exotic thing standing out from the rest of kdelibs, I want
> > it to be consistent with Qt & KDE. And that's a technical argument with
> > clear, rational advantages.
>
> You talk about the naming of static functions and want to tell me
> something about consistency regarding that throughout KDE?
>
> > It's not about mine, your's or a handful of individuals' taste, it's
> > about consistency with a library that's ten times bigger and important
> > than our baby. See the big picture.
>
> The big picture is a project living in kdenonbeta.

No, it will end up in kdelibs. If kdom would stay in a hole which no one ever 
saw I would of course not care.

> There is no style guide for the naming of "static functions" for kdelibs.

Right, there is no API style guide for Qt nor KDE from what I know. I 
orientate after what is strong practices, which of course can be disputed. I 
claim -- and anyone feel free to object -- that Qt & KDE have the convention 
of not capitalizing the first letter in names for static functions. For 
example, it is KURL::split, not KURL::Split, it's QString::fromLatin1, not 
QString::FromLatin1, and so forth. I can right now not think of one case 
where that doesn't hold true.

I presume you wouldn't argue that it's ok to name a getter in kdelibs to 
IsEnabled() because no style guide says not to?

> > No one objected to the suggestion, and you said "I do not really care".
> > If you do find the change bad, follow up the thread and make your
> > arguments clear.
>
> I find the change just _not_ needed, why shall I loose SVN history on


> dozens of files because your idea of style is different from Rob and me?

The only one who is pushing style upon others is the one who introduced it in 
the first place. I'm just trying to undo it.

So either:

* Make the case that your style is closer to Qt & KDE and that KDOM therefore 
is more consistent as it is now.
or
* Argue that consistency with kdelibs doesn't matter, or that your taste is 
somehow more important than the general impression of KDE.

I'm not pushing my taste, I'm pushing the style of Qt & KDE. It's the same 
principle as the whitespace change. Neither Rob or I had it as our personal 
preference, but just accepted it since it makes merging with WebCore easier. 
Just eat your medicin, no one have said it's fun.

(And don't argue for Rob. He's CC'd, and he's perfectly capable of expressing 
himself if he doesn't like this change.)


Cheers,

		Frans
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]