On quinta-feira, 27 de junho de 2013 12.22.51, Knoll Lars wrote: > Ok, explanation sounds reasonable to me, and given that the classes were > documented as internal this is acceptable IMO.
Agreed. But we need an explanation on the QML side for QWindow: > >> > --- a/src/gui/kernel/qwindow.h > >> > +++ b/src/gui/kernel/qwindow.h > >> > @@ -261,10 +286,12 @@ public Q_SLOTS: > >> > void setWidth(int arg); > >> > void setHeight(int arg); > >> > > >> > - void setMinimumWidth(int w); > >> > - void setMinimumHeight(int h); > >> > - void setMaximumWidth(int w); > >> > - void setMaximumHeight(int h); > >> > + Q_REVISION(1) void setMinimumWidth(int w); > >> > + Q_REVISION(1) void setMinimumHeight(int h); > >> > + Q_REVISION(1) void setMaximumWidth(int w); > >> > + Q_REVISION(1) void setMaximumHeight(int h); > >> > >> The meta object system doesn't care about Q_REVISION. It will simply > >>extract > >> the information. So this is neither BIC nor SIC. > >> > >> However, the information is relevant to QML. QML experts, please > >>comment on > >> whether the change above is safe. > > > >If it was in the 5.0 release, I would say the properties should still be > >there > >and thus the Q_REVISION be removed since the classes otherwise suddenly > >lose > >the setters. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
