On Friday 17 January 2025 15:12:36 Pacific Standard Time Marco Bubke via
Development wrote:
> TouchPoint::Pressed -> Touch::Pressed
>
> enum class Touch : int {
>Pressed,
>...
> };
>
> They than could be forward declared too.
As a side-effect, that means they can't be extracted by moc
Hi
On 16.01.25 11:58, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
Hi,
Groundhog Day...
Like every API review, so also in 6.9, we have the discussions between
proponents of scoped vs. unscoped enums in class scope.
One little side note. Putting enumerations into classes can introduce a
dependency. Usin
On 17.01.25 16:52, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> Did anyone ever suggest or put pressure on the C++ standard committee to add
> strong unscoped enums?
Someone did:
// https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/69zWsoGP9
enum class Strong { One, Two, Three };
#ifdef __cpp_using_enum
using enum Strong;
Btw, that reminds me.
Did anyone ever suggest or put pressure on the C++ standard committee to add
strong unscoped enums?
Best regards
Allan
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
On Thursday 16 January 2025 12:31:30 Central European Standard Time Tor Arne
Vestbø via Development wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2025, at 11:56, Marc Mutz via Development
> > wrote:
> > is a very _un_-Qt-ish one. In Qt, we believe that brevity does not
> > automatically equal readability¹, and the more
