Il 19/01/23 10:27, Tor Arne Vestbø ha scritto:
All the contrary, do NOT do that, as it results in 200+ lines unnamed lambdas. Strongly prefer named slots. Keep the lambdas short and to the point. Do not use unnamed lambdas.No, strongly prefer lambdas if they are within a reasonable size. No-one is arguing for 200+ line lambdas.
The reason for such a harsh rule is that "reasonable size" tends to go out of control very quickly. Is 10 lines too much? Maybe 15? Giving it a fixed size opens up the door to a sorites paradox. The point is that when you write the lambda the first time, it'll be completely obvious what it does to you, even if it's long. You'll even avoid giving it a name and connect straight to it, as it makes "perfect sense", in the context of the code surrounding the lambda.
But on the long run, this makes the code worse to read and understand. No one will understand what the lambda is _meant_ to do without analyzing the body of the lambda, line by line (cf.: a named lambda/slot, where a proper name tells you everything). And reasoning on the code surrounding the lambda is also much harder as it's intermingled with the lambda itself.
If anything: the fact that this is seen as _questionable_ and people disagree on it should be a good indication that examples shouldn't do it, as examples shouldn't feature _questionable_ code styles.
My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
