the current _qpa situation is legacy and makes working with the code more painful. It will never be less painful to address than right now and I am really glad you have undertaken this Kamikaze initiative on our behalf.
I am also glad you are going through the code busy cleaning up these internal tendrils that are still draped everywhere as of the alpha release. You make the QPA internals sound like Shelob's lair. On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Girish Ramakrishnan <gir...@forwardbias.in> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Richard Moore <r...@kde.org> wrote: >> On 18 April 2012 15:18, <casper.vandonde...@nokia.com> wrote: >>> Just for my mental state of mind: will these classes then be documented as >>> normal classes, or \internal, or do we need something special for them >>> still? >> >> I'd say we still want something special for them. We want these >> classes to be documented somewhere (even if it's in a standalone set >> of docs) and \internal would hide them. >> > > I already added \group qpa (for grouping) and \preliminary (for > subject to change) for all QPA classes. I added \internal only because > most of the stuff is undocumented :-) As we add documentation, we can > start removing the \internal tags. > > Girish > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- ------------------------------- °v° Donald Carr /(_)\ Vaguely Professional Penguin lover ^ ^ Cave canem, te necet lingendo Chasing my own tail; hate to see me leave, love to watch me go _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development