On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 19 de setembro de 2012 15.27.53, Sandro Andrade wrote:
> > 1) It seems there are no qt modules currently using nested namespaces.
> > Would that make
> > my module looks somehow non qt-ish ?
>
> Right.
syncqt is not to b
On quarta-feira, 19 de setembro de 2012 15.27.53, Sandro Andrade wrote:
> 1) It seems there are no qt modules currently using nested namespaces.
> Would that make
> my module looks somehow non qt-ish ?
Right.
> It'd be nice if we could have a more direct mapping
> between spec and implementation.
Hi there, any suggestion about that ?
Thanks,
--
Sandro
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Sandro Andrade wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm developing a qt-based implementation of an OMG specification with
> defines a number of
> classes in different (nested) namespaces. I'd be nice to have the
> implementatio
Hi,
I'm developing a qt-based implementation of an OMG specification with
defines a number of
classes in different (nested) namespaces. I'd be nice to have the
implementation as close as possible
to the spec. For that purpose, headers would be included like:
#include
Module's .pro just defines
