Hi, There are now 73 results to the survey, current results are at
https://bugreports.qt.io/secure/attachment/92413/survey_result.pdf I tried to aggregate also the other suggestions, and ordering by absolute votes: mySignal() - 21 votes Q_EMIT mySignal() - 13 votes [[qt::emit]] mySignal() - 12 votes qemit mySignal() - 5 votes emit mySignal() - 3 votes qEmit(mySignal) - 1 vote keep the \"ugly\" q_emit but don\`t require it. - 1 vote method call with naming convention - 1 vote mySignal() // emit, let a comment look lik a comment - 1 vote [[emit]] - 1 vote emitmysignal() - 1 vote Thanks for participating! Kai > -----Original Message----- > From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Kai > Köhne > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 4:31 PM > To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com>; Lars Knoll > <lars.kn...@qt.io> > Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>; Qt development mailing > list <development@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Development] A modest proposal: disable lower-case keywords > (emit, foreach, forever, signals, slots) by default > > Hi, > > Since this is arguably as much about taste as it is about technicalities, I > thought it might be interesting to do a quick poll in the form of a survey: > > https://www.1ka.si/a/255723 > > Disclaimer: Qt Project is not a democracy, so let's not pretend that whatever > gets most clicks gets implemented in the end. Still, I'm curious ... > > Kai > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> On Behalf Of > > Ville Voutilainen > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 2:53 PM > > To: Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> > > Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>; Qt development > > mailing list <development@qt-project.org> > > Subject: Re: [Development] A modest proposal: disable lower-case > > keywords (emit, foreach, forever, signals, slots) by default > > > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 14:42, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: > > > But we could convey the information that this is a signal you’re > > > calling > > *reliably* through other means. This implies that the keyword is not > required. > > > > Was the keyword ever required? Seems like it's just a taste difference > > from a > > > > qEmit(my_signal()); > > > > to write > > > > emit my_signal(); > > > > The first one can be namespaced, and thus its name lookup controlled. > > It also never clashes with a member name. > > Its worse aesthetics aside, if we'd had that since the beginning, we > > wouldn't be talking about the current clashes with std::osyncstream. > > _______________________________________________ > > Development mailing list > > Development@qt-project.org > > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
