On 26 November 2014 at 13:29, Attila Csipa <q...@csipa.in.rs> wrote: > The good news is your 2.0 statement will import whatever the latest > implementation registers for the 2.0 version. The ((un)intended?) > side-effect of this is that the backward compatibility is not 100% - if > you relied on something that has changes/fixes in the newer > implementation, there is no going back other than downgrading your Qt > version.
If this is so, then I wonder if it won't be better to introduce/ change the syntax to something like this: import at least QtQuick 2.0 or (probably better) require QtQuick 2.0 meaning "include the newest feature set available, while 2.0 is the absolute minimum". It describes the reality a bit better. When people see "import QtQuick 2.0" they often think "oh my, if I update Qt version, I will have to bump all those numbers in my code". _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
