On 13/09/21 21:58, Elvis Stansvik wrote: > I don't see what's inherently wrong with a plain function like > Qt.resolvedUrl. It's very obvious - it says what it does on the tin. > Names are good that way.
FWIW I've been using it for ages, and yes, if it initially it sounded a bit verbose, now I'm perfectly accustomed to it. > @ on the other hand would be completely opaque to a newcomer. > > When in a later mail, you reject qsUrl as an alternative to > Qt.resolvedUrl because 'it doesn't express "resolved"', I must ask: > How exactly does @ express "resolved"? qsUrl could be a nice addition, but even than, I don't feel such a strong need for it either. I think that the point raised by Oswald, about the waste of using "@" for such a narrow functionality, also deserves more attention. Ciao, Alberto -- http://www.mardy.it - Geek in un lingua international _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
