[Development] Can we remove recommendation against unnamed namespaces from Qt coding conventions?

[Mathias Hasselmann]

Am 21.02.2024 um 20:28 schrieb Thiago Macieira:

> On Wednesday, 21 February 2024 10:56:49 PST Edward Welbourne via Development
> wrote:
>> (Incidentally, the ways I can think of to say "has no name" tend to
>> suffer from some degree of precedent as "has a name but it has not been
>> disclosed" - the anonymous author of a pamphlet, the unnamed person who
>> reported a problem.  I'm currently unable to think of such a precedent
>> for "nameless", but I suspect that's only that I can't currently think
>> of it.  Then again, if a namespace with no name actually does have a
>> secret name, I guess that just matches the linguistic baggage.)
> It's an unnamed namespace, not anonymous namespace.
>
> There's such a thing as anonymous union, though.

You are obviously referring to the wording in the actual C++ standard.

Still I'd really avoid rebuking Edward or anyone else for using the term 
"anonymous namespace". It's simply the term established by Clang and GCC:

https://godbolt.org/z/xTe8zfhfs

Guess we either have to live with this inconsistency, well or convince 
the developers of CCC and Clang to correct their code.

Ciao
Mathias