[Development] Naming convention for (scoped) enums

[Tor Arne Vestbø]

Bringing this up again in light of e.g. https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/235167/

When I gave my support to this I thought we were talking about global enums. I do not think that using class enums inside existing classes is a win for code readability/writability:

When you have
 
 switch (point->state()) {

It's pretty obvious what case QQuickEventPoint::Pressed: refers to. being overly explicit with case QQuickEventPoint::State::Pressed: just adds more to type for no reason.

Or:

  if (event->device()->pointerType() != QQuickPointerDevice::Finger 

Gives me all the info I need, and having to type or read this instead is worse in my opinion:

  if (event->device()->pointerType() != QQuickPointerDevice::PointerType::Finger &&

I think we should revisit this policy, and only use it when there’s actually a clash.

Tor Arne 

> On 22 May 2018, at 10:04, Alex Blasche <alexander.blasche at qt.io> wrote:
> 
> I updated the enum section:
> 
> https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles#Naming_Enum_Types_and_Values
> 
> --
> Alex
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Development <development-bounces+alexander.blasche=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io>
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2018 9:30:18 AM
> To: Christian Kandeler
> Cc: Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] Naming convention for (scoped) enums
> 
> 
> 
>> On 17 May 2018, at 11:35, Christian Kandeler <christian.kandeler at qt.io> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 08:14:15 +0000
>> Alex Blasche <alexander.blasche at qt.io> wrote:
>> 
>>> The naming conventions for enums state that each enum value name must repeat a part of the enum Type name (for details see https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles#Naming_Enum_Types_and_Values)
>>> 
>>> In case of scoped enums this becomes a superfluous rule as the type has to be mentioned anyway. Does anybody object to modifying the above definition by adding an exception for scoped enums where you do not have to repeat a part of the enum type name?
>> 
>> I would not have even assumed that the rule applies to scoped enums, but it can't hurt to write it down explicitly. Perhaps the section should be rewritten so that the unscoped enums are the special case rather than the other way around.
> 
> Agree. The default for new enums should be scoped enums.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lars
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development