Oliver Wolff (26 February 2020 15:10) wrote
[snip]
> it serves a purpose to me. "Look here a signal is emitted, so that other
> parts who are interested in this information might react". For me that's
> important information when reading code (be it while coding or in code
> reviews).
Indeed. As a reviewer, the awareness that "this" may have been
destroyed at the emit makes these lines a significant pause for thought.
Admittedly, when the emit happens inside some method I'm calling, that
may be hidden; but then that method's name should reflect the possibly
drastic changes to context that are credible responses to its
signalling. We can say the same of the signal name, of course, but the
signal itself is somewhat "atomic" where the methods that exercise them
are (ipso facto) composites whose names need to reflect what they're
expected to do over-all, where the signal's name properly just says what
event has happened, that someone might want to connect to.
I'd consider a naming convention adequate for signals, all the same.
Eddy.
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
