On Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018 14:25:21 CEST Edward Welbourne wrote:
>>> My primary concern with this API is that it promotes an unclear
>>> ownership model.
>> hmm ... this is partly a symptom of most QAbstractCalendar instances
>> being dataless. Each calendar has different code to implement it
Dear All,
I am new to Qt and trying to build it from source using MinGw_64. However, i am
getting an error as below,
qtbase/src/corelib/global/qglobal.cpp::5: error: '_wgetenv_s' was not
declared in this scope
_wgetenv_s(&requiredSize, 0, 0, wname.data());
^~
C:/Qt/5.1
On Dienstag, 31. Juli 2018 14:25:21 CEST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> > My primary concern with this API is that it promotes an unclear
> > ownership model.
>
> hmm ... this is partly a symptom of most QAbstractCalendar instances
> being dataless. Each calendar has different code to implement its
>
Simon Hausmann (31 July 2018 12:38)
> I've said this also in the reviews, but perhaps it got lost:
'fraid so. It's been a long review ... and gerrit's not good at helping
us find which comments haven't been addressed.
> My primary concern with this API is that it promotes an unclear
> ownership m
pment@qt-project.org
Subject: [Development] Calendar classes: API review request
Feature freeze is drawing near, as Jani just reminded us,
and Soroush's work on calendar support is in a state that
looks (to me) ready to use.
Please would those with strong views on API design take
a look at [0] and
Feature freeze is drawing near, as Jani just reminded us,
and Soroush's work on calendar support is in a state that
looks (to me) ready to use.
Please would those with strong views on API design take
a look at [0] and speak up now, so that we don't end up
reworking it all during the API review pha
