[Development] Avoid overloading of 'error'

[Smith Martin]

If you are saying you didn't know what onError meant, then I truly am astonished. Understanding onError, given all the other onThis and onThat we have in QML, really doesn't depend on the This or the That being a verb. I didn't mean that any of these phrases translates well into other languages.

I suppose it should have been done with "when" instead of "on."

________________________________________
From: development-bounces+martin.smith=theqtcompany.com at qt-project.org <development-bounces+martin.smith=theqtcompany.com at qt-project.org> on behalf of Konrad Rosenbaum <konrad at silmor.de>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 12:53 PM
To: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Avoid overloading of 'error'

On Thursday 11 June 2015 07:29:51 Smith Martin wrote:
> onError is immediately understood by all sentient beings in the universe.

So, apparently either Germans are not sentient or from outside this
universe. Might explain a lot about me...

At the very least I disagree with your use of "immediately".

The phrase "on error" has no immediate translation in some languages - e.g.
in German it has to be translated to  "nach Fehler" ("after error") instead
of the more literal "auf Fehler" ("on-top-of error") or the intuitive (but
very wrong) "an Fehler" ("at/next-to error").

On the other hand "onSuccess" always sounds like a toast to me ("Auf den
Erfolg!" - "To success!") and it takes me a while to understand why a
program would believe in performing rituals for good luck.

It might be this oddity of my language, but I really hate this whole
"onSomething" style - it reeks of hungarian notation and seems completely
superfluous.


Either way, since I don't care much about QML/JS - do whatever you like
there. But PLEASE do not ruin it for the C++ side!


        Konrad