[Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

Marc Mutz marc.mutz at kdab.com
Fri Dec 4 08:49:14 CET 2015

On Friday 04 December 2015 02:56:11 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2015 14:14:19 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > That depends on how big the remainder is. I argue that we're relevant
> > enough  that our own direction is big enough to be of relevance.
> That didn't come out right. Rephrasing:
> Qt has enough market share by itself that we can choose our own direction
> and still be relevant. We are allowed to disagree with what others do.

Yes, but only if we know *better*.

I very much doubt that more than very few people in Qt development have the 
knowledge to objectively overrule the accepted C++ authorities. I myself have 
seen over and over again that how I thought a feature should be used was blown 
to smithereens by members of the committee, usually rightfully so.

So the default should be to follow what the greater C++ community is doing, 
while *divergence* from that needs to be argued for.

Everything else is approaching hubris, imo.

> we don't use exceptions

...and look at the sorry state of error handling in Qt - every class does it 
differently... It's ok not to use exceptions, but not having a consistent error 
handling strategy doesn't put us into a position to throw that stone.

> we don't use underscores

... except we do (grep "qt_"). And there's *nothing* wrong with that!


Marc Mutz <marc.mutz at kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts

More information about the Development mailing list