On Friday 20 September 2024 13:57:14 GMT-7 Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > FTR, I'm voting -1 on "static constexpr inline" (without further > qualification), because Q_CONSTINIT must come _first_ (it's an attribute > in C++17, keyword only in C++20), and it makes no sense to require > constexpr and constinit to be at different positions.
Arthur didn't conclude on constinit. If we take the doubt that it is not a const attribute but modifying the statement, it's fine for it to be all the way to the left. BTW, I prefer "constexpr inline", but I think Arthur's reasoned argument makes sense to adopt, which would make it "inline constexpr", so that it's inline is always next to "static", if it is there. Plus, all constexpr are inline, so there's no such thing as an out-of-line constexpr (whether we have to write the keyword or not). That said, the inline keyword can be omitted for functions, so moving it to the right where we usually won't try to grep makes some sense. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
