Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Another feature patch (Append Label Suffixes)

[D. M. M. <mic...@ro...>]

On Friday 18 July 2008, Chris Cannam wrote:
> There is a precedent, but it is a precedent for configuration data
> that are stored in the document rather than in application settings --
> see Configuration.h, and particularly the TransportMode configuration
> which was added relatively recently by Philippe Macaire.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to dredge up.

> Well, to be fair I was the one who insisted on not using any Qt stuff
> in base in the first place -- not Guillaume.

I have no idea who was responsible for that, and wasn't implying that it was 
Guillaume.  I merely point out that he's the one most likely to benefit from 
that design consideration now that he's off working on his fork.  For our 
part, I think we've pretty much decided our fate and QT's fate are one.  
There's just too much GUI code, and while we do build on an encapsulated 
base, that doesn't do much to mitigate the complexity of porting the massive 
GUI to something else.

> But I think we need to either abandon the policy properly (making an
> effort to replace std::string with QString throughout, for example,
> and get rid of all the nasty hacks) or else stick to it.  I don't
> think we should allow just the odd exception here and there; that
> would be the worst of both worlds.

No, I totally agree, and said as much in another message in the thread.  To 
reiterate:

 (Although if we make that argument, it follows to get rid 
 of all the qstrtostr() whatever hackery we have bloody everywhere in this 
 thing already to accommodate that original design parameter, and it wouldn't 
 be very clean just to let one exception in half-assed without refactoring all 
 of base to just use bloody QString already)
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre