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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Pimpl copying
From:       David Faure <faure () kde ! org>
Date:       2006-07-17 6:01:22
Message-ID: 200607170801.22757.faure () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 14 July 2006 21:13, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Friday 14 July 2006 11:35, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >> Searching for "Private;" shows that the naming is totally inconsistent
> >> in kdelibs. So the question is, must it be consistent? And if, which
> >> name should be used?
> > 
> > yes, it should be consistent. no, i don't think we should spend time 
> > discussing it on this list. there are people who feel one way, others who 
> > feel another ... it's almost purely personal aesthetic opinion. and opinions 
> > can (and will) be discussed (or argued) forever without resolution.
> > 
> 
> Yes, I also think it should be consistent and I also think we should
> avoid such endless discussion. (I can't imagine that someone is
> really annoyed by such a trivial decision)
> 
> 
> > this, along with other coding style issues for kdelibs, should simply be 
> > mandated by the TWG since they are the closest we have to a kdelibs 
> > maintainer team and the rest of us can just abide by that.

Honestly, for all those "how to write library classes" issues, I would say, let's
just do what Qt does. Consistent, and avoids re-inventing (and re-discussing!)
the wheel.

Qt uses QFooPrivate instead of QFoo::Private, maybe the reason is the visibility
issue, but in any case I'd suggest we just do that.

Similary, I would suggest just using Q_DISABLE_COPY, etc.

-- 
David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).



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