On Saturday, February 23, 2013 01:20:46 Sven Langkamp wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Jean-Nicolas Artaud > > <jeannicolasart...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2013/2/20 Sven Langkamp <sven.langk...@gmail.com> > > > >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Inge Wallin <i...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > >> > As you may have noticed, I have taken some interest in EBN, the KDE > >> > static > >> > code checker[1]. One of the categories there is "Check for Qt classes > >> > that > >> > should not be used" where it recommends to use e.g. KTabBar instead of > >> > QTabBar > >> > and so on. > >> > > >> > What's our opinion on that? That should be something very simple to > >> > build > >> > into fixsrc.py but I hesitate to do it because I don't know what our > >> > motivations for not doing it to such a high degree is. Lack of support > >> > in > >> > KDevelop / Qt Creator? The programmer didn't know they exist? > >> > Something > >> > else? > >> > > >> > -Inge > >> > > >> > [1]http://englishbreakfastnetwork.org/krazy/index.php?component=bundled > >> > - > >> > apps&module=calligra > >> > >> I saw that too recently and I think that these classes shouldn't be > >> changed because KDE Frameworks goes into the exact opposite direction. > >> I mailed Allan Winter about that some time, but didn't get an answer. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> calligra-devel mailing list > >> calligra-devel@kde.org > >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel > > > > Maybe contacting ervin at kde dot org could help too, he is totally > > involved in KDE > > frameworks. I do agree with you Sven on the fact that "KDE Frameworks goes > > into > > the exact opposite direction". By the way, that doesn't mean that every > > part of the > > KDE libs has to be forgotten. KDE needs things that Qt doesn't have, and > > Frameworks > > just explose things, to be Qt nearer and nearer. > > Looks like Inge and I did contacted him independently. He mentioned > that it's still a long time till KDE Frameworks and that the checks > are still valid for consistency reasons. > In my opinion the visual difference is almost invisible and the change > not really needed. So I would either blacklist the check or give it a > very low priority.
While you may be right I'm not sure that I buy this reasoning. That the visual difference is small is not reason enough. The motivation mentions other things like i18n and so on. But I think that this error is largely ignored anyway so I guess we could ignore it. I'm going to investigate the actual differences and see what the reasons are for using one or the other. > _______________________________________________ > calligra-devel mailing list > calligra-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
