> 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

Reply via email to