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
On 20.09.24 11:51, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 17:35, Volker Hilsheimer via Development
> wrote:
>> My preference would be "static constexpr inline”, as static is the most
>> important piece of information (storage and calling convention in case of
>> member functions), co
On 20/9/24 22:15, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
On Thursday 19 September 2024 16:00:22 Central European Summer Time Thiago
Macieira wrote:
On Wednesday 18 September 2024 22:10:44 GMT-7 Marc Mutz via Development
wrote:
Enforcing one over the other would make it impossible to follow
https://wiki.
On Thursday 19 September 2024 16:00:22 Central European Summer Time Thiago
Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 September 2024 22:10:44 GMT-7 Marc Mutz via Development
wrote:
> > Enforcing one over the other would make it impossible to follow
> > https://wiki.qt.io/Things_To_Look_Out_For_In_Reviews#
On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 17:35, Volker Hilsheimer via Development
wrote:
> My preference would be "static constexpr inline”, as static is the most
> important piece of information (storage and calling convention in case of
> member functions), constexpr is “good to know”, and inline is in practic
