Am 05.03.2019 um 11:53 schrieb Tor Arne Vestbø:
On 5 Mar 2019, at 11:27, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
Il 05/03/19 08:14, Lars Knoll ha scritto:
One solution I thought about is to replace the QT_DEPRECATED(_X) macros with
something that also contains the version (similar to QT_DEP
> On 5 Mar 2019, at 11:27, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>
> Il 05/03/19 08:14, Lars Knoll ha scritto:
>> One solution I thought about is to replace the QT_DEPRECATED(_X) macros with
>> something that also contains the version (similar to QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE).
>> Then the user c
Il 05/03/19 08:14, Lars Knoll ha scritto:
One solution I thought about is to replace the QT_DEPRECATED(_X) macros
with something that also contains the version (similar to
QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE). Then the user could define how current he wants to
be, and we could set a reasonable default going
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:14:00 AM CET Lars Knoll wrote:
> One solution I thought about is to replace the QT_DEPRECATED(_X) macros with
> something that also contains the version (similar to QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE).
> Then the user could define how current he wants to be, and we could set a
> reason
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 22:27:42 +0100
André Pönitz wrote:
> (5) Use #if (QT_VERSION / QT_VERSION_CHECK. To "fix" perfectly
> valid code *for cosmetical reasons*? DUH!
Example: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/252715/1 was necessary because
of the immediate deprecation of an existing function w
> On 4. Mar 2019, at 22:27, André Pönitz wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:51:08PM +0100, Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently introduced some new signals
>> (Q(Double)SpinBox::textChanged, QComboBox::textActivated) as
>> replacements for old ones to be able to avoid the use
behalf of Lars Knoll
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:14 AM
To: Christian Ehrlicher
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] On deprecating functions
On 5 Mar 2019, at 06:56, Christian Ehrlicher
mailto:ch.ehrlic...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 05.03.2019 um 00:37 schrieb André Pöni
On 5 Mar 2019, at 06:56, Christian Ehrlicher
mailto:ch.ehrlic...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 05.03.2019 um 00:37 schrieb André Pönitz:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:48:25 PST André Pönitz wrote:
The proposed model would effectively introduce
Am 05.03.2019 um 00:37 schrieb André Pönitz:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:48:25 PST André Pönitz wrote:
The proposed model would effectively introduce another user-visible
level including associated period of time between "alternati
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:18:16PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:27:42 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> > Truly personally, I'd even go for
> > "no deprecation at all *for purely cosmetical reasons*" as I've seen
> > too many taking route
>
> That's a good point. Often we dep
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:48:25 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> > The proposed model would effectively introduce another user-visible
> > level including associated period of time between "alternative
> > solution gets introducd" and "ge
On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:27:42 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> Truly personally, I'd even go for
> "no deprecation at all *for purely cosmetical reasons*" as I've seen
> too many taking route
That's a good point. Often we deprecate things because we had a misspelling or
failed to take our own naming
On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:48:25 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> The proposed model would effectively introduce another user-visible
> level including associated period of time between "alternative
> solution gets introducd" and "getting nagged about not using it"
> that is "hopefully" long enough, to co
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 12:21:09PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 4 March 2019 10:46:00 PST Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
> > You know what happens in this case - nothing since noone
> > notices... see all the usages of deprecated functions within
> > QtBase which have been unrecognized fo
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:51:08PM +0100, Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently introduced some new signals
> (Q(Double)SpinBox::textChanged, QComboBox::textActivated) as
> replacements for old ones to be able to avoid the use of
> QOverload<>::of in Qt6 and to better match their respect
On Monday, 4 March 2019 10:46:00 PST Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
> You know what happens in this case - nothing since noone notices... see
> all the usages of deprecated functions within QtBase which have been
> unrecognized for ages.
I do, but who's to say people will fix warnings? Will they do th
Am 04.03.2019 um 19:28 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
On Monday, 4 March 2019 09:58:40 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
Christian Ehrlicher (4 March 2019 17:51) wrote
So what's the correct way to deprecate a function and not forgetting
about QT_DEPRECATED later on as it happened with a lot of functions
d
On Monday, 4 March 2019 09:58:40 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> Christian Ehrlicher (4 March 2019 17:51) wrote
>
> > So what's the correct way to deprecate a function and not forgetting
> > about QT_DEPRECATED later on as it happened with a lot of functions
> > during Qt4 times?
>
> Isn't that wha
Christian Ehrlicher (4 March 2019 17:51) wrote
> So what's the correct way to deprecate a function and not forgetting
> about QT_DEPRECATED later on as it happened with a lot of functions
> during Qt4 times?
Isn't that what
#if QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE(5, 13)
is for ?
Eddy.
__
Hi,
I recently introduced some new signals (Q(Double)SpinBox::textChanged,
QComboBox::textActivated) as replacements for old ones to be able to
avoid the use of QOverload<>::of in Qt6 and to better match their
respective properties.
Within those changes I also marked the old signals as depreca
20 matches
Mail list logo
