[Development] Naming convention for (scoped) enums

[Jan-Arve Sæther]

Seems that there is no definite consensus on this, but we will abandon https://codereview.qt-project.org/235167,

since it's not that important for us in the end. It seems that most people are against such a change.


It would be good if a decision is taken on this (and wiki is updated) in order to not have this discussion again later.


Jan Arve


________________________________
Fra: Development <development-bounces+jan-arve.saether=qt.io at qt-project.org> på vegne av Simon Hausmann <simon.hausmann at qt.io>
Sendt: mandag 3. september 2018 16.31.07
Til: development at qt-project.org
Emne: Re: [Development] Naming convention for (scoped) enums


Am 31.08.18 um 11:56 schrieb Tor Arne Vestbø:
> I think Simon’s reasoning in the review that spurred this discussion summarises it nicely:
>
>> On 31 Aug 2018, at 10:24, Simon Hausmann (Code Review) <gerrit-noreply at qt-project.org> wrote:
>>
>> Simon Hausmann has posted comments on this change.
>>
>> Change subject: Convert QQEventPoint and QQPointerDevice enums to enum classes
>> ......................................................................
>>
>>
>> Patch Set 7:
>>
>> As excited I was initially with enum classes, I also start to dislike them when looking at their use.
>>
>> The counter example, QQuickPointerDevice::Mouse, is awesome. QQuickPointerDevice::DeviceType::Mouse looks worse.
>>
>> Always scoping leads to redundancy and never scoping leads to clashes. Enum classes don't allow us to choose, they force us into the longer names. The previous policy of prefixing _when needed_ gave us the flexibility to have lean names when we could and longer names when required. For example QuickItem::ItemHasContents.
>>
>> So in terms of naming I find enum classes not truly winning. Perhaps they make us more lazy in finding the best names, because just putting whatever we have in an enum class "takes care of it".
>>
>> The remaining argument in favor of enum classes is the type safety they add. But at least inside Qt I've often seen it become an anti-pattern because we do things in a more low-level fashion and need to cast to an int sometimes, for example.
>>
>> Given the names in this very API, I also disagree with commit message statement that the existing scoping is insufficient. (See QQuickPointerDevice::GrabState::GrabExclusive)
> Based on the disagreement on how and when to use scoped enums, I think we should change the style policy to:
>
>   - always recommend using scoped enums for global enums
>   - describe the pro’s and con’s of scoped enums inside classes
>         - ask the developer to consider each case individually
>                - and use good judgement in choosing one or the other


+1 on this.


Simon


_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20180925/8580de6a/attachment.html>