On 2025-01-16, Marc Mutz via Development <development@qt-project.org> wrote: > 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? > > I believe everyone agrees that there are _technical_ reasons to prefer > scoped enums: no implicit conversion to underlying_type, defined > underlying type even if not explicitly given, etc.
> But the implicit conversions of unscoped enums are still unwanted! I do actually think there is a place where we want unscoped enums. And that's when they are more used as a constant and as an extension point. Places like this are - the roles in the item models. - event types (and maybe others of the same pattern) Making these scoped enums; I just don't see where the gain is, but I see lots of pain. For most othes, though current naming is a bit weird, I prefer scoped enums. /Sune -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
