Hi, > From: Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> > > Hi, > > Il 04/04/22 15:53, Sona Kurazyan ha scritto: > > I see two main issues with keeping both: > > > > - If we want to add UDLs with same names for different domains in future, > adding the "q"-prefixed counterparts will be problematic. For example, let's > say we want to add Qt::inline Literals::inline OtherDomain::_s, what should > be the "q"-prefixed version of it? We can name it to something like _qXs, > where X is some domain specific letter, but it will require even more typing, > and make the name inconsistent with Qt::inline Literals::inline > OtherDomain::_s. > > I'm not sure how this work: unless the new _s takes another kind input > (e.g. number literals), you can't add it no matter what, as users under > "using namespace Qt;" would then get a conflict...? >
Right, it will work only if the types of the literals with the same name differ, so we can add e.g. _s for seconds (or something else) in future. > > > > > - We will have multiple ways of doing the same thing, and I assume, it might > be confusing for users. > > Sure thing, that's why I'm OK at deprecating one of the two. > > Thanks, > I'll wait a bit more, to make sure that there are no more concerns/objections against deprecating _qX and adding their counterparts to Qt::StringLiterals, and merge https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/401308/ and https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/401604/. Best regards, Sona _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
