On 04/10/2014 10:45 AM, JohannesLorenz wrote:
>
> In src/gui/widgets/knob.cpp:
>
> > -	{
> > -		m_outerColor = new QColor( _c );
> > -	}
> > +	m_outerColor = _c;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > +
> > +QColor knob::lineColor() const
> > +{
> > +	return m_lineColor;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > +
> > +void knob::setlineColor( const QColor & _c )
>
> Qt Creator really auto suggested this. I checked it twice. Should we
> not follow what Qt suggests?
>
>

I think we have our own naming convention which isn't always the same as
what Qt uses. For example, arguments to functions in Qt are of the form
argument, while ours are _argument. 

The Qt way would arguably make more sense in that it'd be easier to
write macros for access method generation etc. if the method names were
uniform (ie. just add "set" to the beginning), but that's a pretty minor
concern, it would only save one macro argument, and since all our other
properties already follow the "setWhatever" naming scheme, it's probably
better to just stick to what we have...