[Development] Coding style for lambdas, particularly their open-brace

[Mark Gaiser]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Edward Welbourne <edward.welbourne at qt.io>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have a draft policy for lambdas at [0], in a section that begins with
>
>   Note: This section is not an accepted convention yet.
>   This section serves as baseline for further discussions.
>
> That section is now a quarter decade old; it's had a few updates since
> it was added (2015-02-27), so may fairly be said to be evolving (albeit
> it's had more formatting changes than substantive ones); but perhaps
> it's about time we agreed that at least its low-level bits about
> formatting can be promoted to [1], without such a caveat.
>
> * [0] https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions#Conventions_for_C.
> 2B.2B11_usage
> * [1] https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Coding_Style#Braces
>
> In particular, I'd like to (at least) amend the first exception in [1],
>
>   Function implementations and class declarations always have the left
>   brace on the start of a line:
>
> to include "(but not lambdas)" in a judicious place, so that lambdas are
> excluded from the exception and fit into our general pattern, putting
> the open-brace on the same line as its controlling preamble: e.g.
>
>   Function implementations (but not lambdas) and class declarations
>   always have the left brace on the start of a line:
>
> Does anyone object to this minimal change ?
> (How long do I have to wait before I can claim lazy consensus ?)
>
>         Eddy.
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>

The explicit return type rule should probably be changed, as that was for
VS2010. And that compiler has been dropped in 5.7.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20170818/00be227c/attachment.html>