[Qt-interest] 答复: capture screen

[Scott Aron Bloom]

-----Original Message-----
From: qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com [mailto:qt-interest-bounces at trolltech.com] On Behalf Of Carsten Breuer
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:48 PM
To: Malyushytsky, Alex
Cc: qt-interest at trolltech.com
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] 答复: capture screen

Hi Alex,

> There is nothing wrong with using "this" even though it is not required.
> Sometimes it saves you time clearly stating that you are calling the member function and not global one.

I disagree here. The "this" desease started with scripting languages like
python, java etc. C++ works over a decade without it because developers
understand namespaces.It make the code less readable, worse maintainable
and is pretty much useless. Torvalds would say "stupid and uggly" ;-).
There are cases, where the use of "this" clarify things, i agree.
To use this for every access of class members is IMO pretty worse
and in the context of the given example it was totally useless, more
than then that, redundant:

--------------
I think it also started when C++ developers stopped being concerned about prefixing their member objects.
Hide() vs this->hide() is a problem in my view...

However, when you have a function isHidden(), and inside the class you store a variable to store if its hidden, and you call it isHidden, without a prefix (f,s, m_ etc etc ) 

Your function will have to look like..
bool className::isHidden() const
{
return this->isHidden;
}


Frankly, I HATE in Qt where they do this, and it gets done a ton.. But Ive learned to live with it...

In my view, The formatting of function names and methods should be different then member variables for just this reason.

Scott