[Development] Avoid overloading of 'error'

[Hausmann Simon]

Hi,

I agree about the inconsistency in tense, that is a good argument against error(),
although it is similarly unfortunate that the inconsistency in tense is more widespread than
assumed.

I'm not sure onErred or onErrored is any better, to be honest. I think it's more likely
to result in a typo than the most basic form of the word - error - instead of some conjugation.

In the light of that I think I'd prefer onFailed or onFailure - but I think it would perhaps be
a mistake to make our existing APIs more inconsistent than necessary. It seems like an
unfortunate choice, but I think it's better to stick to error() than to have some QML types
have onError and some have onFailure.

Simon

________________________________________
From: Alan Alpert <416365416c at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 18:59
To: Hausmann Simon
Cc: Thiago Macieira; development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Avoid overloading of 'error'

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Hausmann Simon
<Simon.Hausmann at theqtcompany.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think renaming the getter to lastError is nice! I however do like error as signal name and it looks good in qml as onError:...

I disagree that it looks good in QML as onError, almost all other
signal handlers are past tense so it is visibly odd. But it's nice to
be so short, so maybe a direct past-tense-ify of "onErrored"? If you
don't like using error as a verb, we can use a similar (yet shorter)
verb: "onErred". Not that I really mind the exact name of the new
signal.

--
Alan Alpert