On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On sábado, 7 de dezembro de 2013 15:03:26, Chris Colbert wrote:
>> Is there a line missing from Option A, just after the line for ?
>
> This specific compiler did not output anything for this case.
>
> That case was a misuse of a macro. Here
On Sunday 08 December 2013 12:09:16 Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> On 08 Dec 2013, at 12:00, development-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
> > Just a quick poll: which order do you think is more intuitive?
[...]
> To me option B is more comprehensive to me.
>
> In the other example:
[...]
> I prefer option A.
On 08 Dec 2013, at 12:00, development-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
> Just a quick poll: which order do you think is more intuitive?
>
> Option A:
> qobjectdefs.h:69:20: error: expected unqualified-id before ‘protected’
> # define signals protected
>^
> :1:6: note: in expan
In the first example, Option B contained more information than Option A, to
the point where Option A would leave me head-scratching for a while. In the
newer example, I also find the order of Option B to be more intuitive.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On sábado, 7 de
On sábado, 7 de dezembro de 2013 15:03:26, Chris Colbert wrote:
> Is there a line missing from Option A, just after the line for ?
This specific compiler did not output anything for this case.
That case was a misuse of a macro. Here's another example, where the problem
is inside the macro.
Opti
Is there a line missing from Option A, just after the line for ?
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> Just a quick poll: which order do you think is more intuitive?
>
> Option A:
> qobjectdefs.h:69:20: error: expected unqualified-id before ‘protected’
> # defin
Hi guys
Just a quick poll: which order do you think is more intuitive?
Option A:
qobjectdefs.h:69:20: error: expected unqualified-id before ‘protected’
# define signals protected
^
:1:6: note: in expansion of macro ‘signals’
Option B:
:1:6: error: expected unqualified-id
b
