> On Jan 16, 2025, at 11:56, Marc Mutz via Development > <development@qt-project.org> wrote: > > Like every API review, so also in 6.9, we have the discussions between > proponents of scoped vs. unscoped enums in class scope.
Indicating that it’s still a nuanced issue where each case might have different considerations and preferences. > Can we, please, settle this by strengthening the wording of > https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles#Enums_in_classes to something > that requires scoped enums? Yet your proposal is to ignore those nuances. -1 > is a very _un_-Qt-ish one. In Qt, we believe that brevity does not > automatically equal readability¹, and the more explicit > >> if (point.state() == TouchPoint::State::Pressed) > > is more (but certainly not less) readable than > >> if (point.state() == TouchPoint::Pressed) Who is “we” here? I for one would not agree with what you wrote above, so there’s your data point. The latter is more readable to me due to lack of redundant information (“State::”) Cheers, Tor Arne -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
