> On 3 May 2023, at 18:40, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development > <development@qt-project.org> wrote: >> But sometimes it’s also creating too much verbosity to use a scoped enum >> (ie. Qt::Orientation::Horizontal would perhaps not be an improvement). > > I wouldn't consider this tiny bit of extra verbosity a huge impediment. Note > that Qt::Horizontal is violating the API naming guidelines. It should've been > called Qt::HorizontalOrientation. How is that now better than > Qt::Orientation::Horizontal? > > No, Qt::Horizontal isn't "unambiguous" so it can't be non-qualified. Does it > refer to what? Text alignment? Text direction? Layout direction? (Hint: none > of these.)
Some concepts are abstract enough to be ubiquitous. On/Off, true/false. Horizontal and Vertical are IMHO implicitly clear. What it refers to is not clear anyway unless you see the code that uses the enum. I can make a slider or a layout or a text horizontal or vertical, and it’s IMHO obvious what calls to textLayout->setOrientation(Qt::Horizontal); slider->setOrientation(Qt::Vertical); are doing. The word “Orientation” in the enum itself adds no value. Should we have Qt::TextLayout::Horizontal and Qt::Layout::Horizontal? Or QSlider::Orientation::Horizontal? I do think that these are the exceptions though. Cheers, Volker -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
