On Thursday 15 March 2012 21:21:07 David Faure wrote: > On Thursday 15 March 2012 19:53:36 Kevin Ottens wrote: > > Looks good to me. We probably want also an overload without the iconLoader > > parameter I guess. > > It default to 0, so I assume you mean for the case where someone wants to > specify overlays and use the default iconloader, and a ,0 would look ugly?
Yes exactly.
> > ***
> > As a bonus, the crazy idea of the day:
> > What about making an exception to the casing rule for naming in cases like
> > that (not excluding there's more than K/QIcon matching that pattern) and
> > going for:
> > namespace KDE {
> >
> > QIcon Icon(...);
> >
> > }
> >
> > Client code would then look like:
> > QIcon i = KDE::Icon("foo");
> > instead of:
> > QIcon i = KDE::loadIcon("foo");
> >
> > (I personally think it conveys better the idea as it makes it feel almost
> > like a prototype object)
>
> Well, it's not so crazy. After I send the mail I thought, icon() would be
> better than loadIcon(), especially since the loading doesn't happen at that
> point, but on demand.
> I was thinking icon() lowercase though, Icon() is a little bit crazier
> indeed.
Right icon() would work nicely as well. Breaks less of our customs, but as I
pointed I like the "almost prototype object" idea that Icon() would convey.
> But I'm not necessarily against crazy ideas ;-)
Well, I'll let you pick between icon() and Icon() then. ;-)
Regards.
--
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
