On 03/13/2012 07:04 AM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote:
> The solution given above would mean that it will become optional to
> document NOTIFY signals. But is that not completely different from
> the original problem?
Yes.
The original question was how to make qdoc not see Q_PROPERTY
So let's step back for a bit:
>> I get not wanting to be forced into writing redundant 'emitted when
>> this property has changed' documentation but excluding documentation
>> that has been written for a signal seems a bit excessive, wouldn't it
>> be enough to just omit the warning for an undocum
On 03/12/2012 10:05 AM, ext andrew.den-ex...@nokia.com wrote:
>> This change only affects signals marked as NOTIFY in a Q_PROPERTY
>> macro.
>
> I think the point is there may be instances where a signal that is
> emitted incidentally when a property changes is used as the notify
> signal for that
> On 03/10/2012 07:32 PM, ext Andre Somers wrote:
> > Signals are often used outside the context of properties.
>
> Signals yes, but NOTIFY signals?
>
> This change only affects signals marked as NOTIFY in a Q_PROPERTY macro.
I think the point is there may be instances where a signal that is emi
On 03/10/2012 07:32 PM, ext Andre Somers wrote:
> Signals are often used outside the context of properties.
Signals yes, but NOTIFY signals?
This change only affects signals marked as NOTIFY in a Q_PROPERTY macro.
> I'm already not all that enthousiastic about not having the getters
> and the se
March 09, 2012 12:37 AM
> To: Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo)
> Cc: ext Girish Ramakrishnan; development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QDoc can't ignore Q_PROPERTY
>
> On 03/08/2012 07:38 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote:
>> It might be that this
From: Ramsay Lincoln (Nokia-MP/Brisbane)
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:37 AM
To: Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo)
Cc: ext Girish Ramakrishnan; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QDoc can't ignore Q_PROPERTY
On 03/08/2012 07:38 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP
On 03/08/2012 07:38 PM, Vandonderen Casper (Nokia-MP/Oslo) wrote:
> It might be that this was indeed an oversight.
>
> Can you create a bug report and assign it to me (I am not promising I have
> time to fix it now, or you can fix qdoc yourself and add me as reviewer
> ;-) )
Ok... The "fix" is (as
It might be that this was indeed an oversight.
Can you create a bug report and assign it to me (I am not promising I have
time to fix it now, or you can fix qdoc yourself and add me as reviewer
;-) )
Casper
On 3/8/12 3:56 AM, "ext Girish Ramakrishnan" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:4
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Lincoln Ramsay wrote:
> On 03/03/2012 02:25 AM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On sexta-feira, 2 de março de 2012 18.01.15, Denis Shienkov wrote:
>>> The fact is that if the names of class methods and the same properties names
>>> - then QDoc ignores the descrip
On 03/03/2012 02:25 AM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 2 de março de 2012 18.01.15, Denis Shienkov wrote:
>> The fact is that if the names of class methods and the same properties names
>> - then QDoc ignores the description for the methods.
>
> That's intentional. You document the pr
On sexta-feira, 2 de março de 2012 18.01.15, Denis Shienkov wrote:
> The fact is that if the names of class methods and the same properties names
> - then QDoc ignores the description for the methods.
That's intentional. You document the property. The getter and setter methods
do not need to be do
Hi all.
Is it possible to ignore the macro Q_PROPERTY when generating documentation
QDoc?
If I add *.qdocconf
..
Cpp.ignoretokens += \
Q_PROPERTY
..
or
..
Cpp.ignoredirectives += \
Q_PROPERTY
..
it has no effect.
The fact is that if the names of class methods and the same properties na
13 matches
Mail list logo
