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

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Fri Dec 4 09:13:33 CET 2015

On Friday 04 December 2015 08:49:14 Marc Mutz wrote:
> > 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. 

That's why we use the mailing list and discuss the issue. Our collective minds 
together are quite powerful.

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

You're calling for "opt-in by default" approach, while I am calling for an 
"opt-out by default" approach. Since we need to decide which C++ features to 
use in the first place due to old compilers we need to support, I think we're 
effectively "opt-out by default".

But either way, the end result is the same.

> > we don't use underscores
> ... except we do (grep "qt_"). And there's *nothing* wrong with that!

Not in our API. Those qt_ functions are private API. The underscore is, in 
fact, the marker that it is private.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the Development mailing list