I can appreciate that the API is unstable, and jsut putting that in the documentation as /* THAR BE DRAGONS HERE */ (which I've seen in actual code somewhere, not necessarily Qt) or something to that affect would be sufficient.
I myself in the course of trying vaudeville found a lot of calls changed from 4.8 to 5.0, just from the QPainter api, stuff that was supposed to be stable. Writing a QPA plugin isn't the same as writing an app.
Though I would ask how unstable is it 18 months in?
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM
From: "Tomasz Siekierda" <sierd...@gmail.com>
To: "Tomasz Olszak" <olszak.tom...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Knight Andrew" <andrew.kni...@digia.com>, "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] STILL LOOKING for a QPA
From: "Tomasz Siekierda" <sierd...@gmail.com>
To: "Tomasz Olszak" <olszak.tom...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Knight Andrew" <andrew.kni...@digia.com>, "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] STILL LOOKING for a QPA
On 20 May 2014 15:37, Tomasz Olszak <olszak.tom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not that it is hidden. It's private so that it can change in next
> non patch version. You can use it on your own responsibility and many
> developers, especially in embedded world, do that.
> Minimal documentation is a fact, anyone can change that :).
I am not questioning the fact that the API is private - that may be a
right decision indeed. I am arguing that the documentation should be
available more easily (as the original post shows, it's visibility may
not be exactly obvious).
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
> It's not that it is hidden. It's private so that it can change in next
> non patch version. You can use it on your own responsibility and many
> developers, especially in embedded world, do that.
> Minimal documentation is a fact, anyone can change that :).
I am not questioning the fact that the API is private - that may be a
right decision indeed. I am arguing that the documentation should be
available more easily (as the original post shows, it's visibility may
not be exactly obvious).
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
