Volker Hilsheimer (23 January 2024 10:00) wrote:
> I also like the general idea of supporting the header review process
> with more information, such as links to the relevant documentation, or
> even a documentation diff, or even change on gerrit that introduced
> the change; but that’s probably or
> On 22 Jan 2024, at 22:15, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>
> Il 22/01/24 19:03, Shawn Rutledge via Development ha scritto:
>> I guess your goal is to be able to see it in the header rather than having
>> to look up the docs in the cpp file or online? (Alternatively we could
>> w
Il 22/01/24 19:03, Shawn Rutledge via Development ha scritto:
I guess your goal is to be able to see it in the header rather than
having to look up the docs in the cpp file or online? (Alternatively we
could write all docs in headers, but then the headers get to be large,
take storage space
On Jan 22, 2024, at 10:41 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
Hi,
A number of classes and functions that are going to be introduced in 6.7 are
meant to be "tech preview", and thus they may pass the header review even if we
are aware of some limitations or issues with their design.
Hi,
A number of classes and functions that are going to be introduced in 6.7
are meant to be "tech preview", and thus they may pass the header review
even if we are aware of some limitations or issues with their design.
I propose to introduce a macro, QT_TECH_PREVIEW_API (bikeshed please),
