On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:09:48PM +0000, Ahumada Sergio wrote: > Hi, > > While I was trying to mark tst_headers as significant again > <https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTQAINFRA-324> I found out that I > had to add some QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER macros to some headers. > > After some investigation and talks with Thiago, I realized this macro > expands to nothing, so I decided to remove the check in tst_headers instead > of adding the missing QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER macros > <https://codereview.qt-project.org/44076>. > > So far, this change does not affect Qt in any way, but I now want to go a > little bit further and remove the check in 'syncqt' > <https://codereview.qt-project.org/44810> > > As the commit message says, this macro "might be removed", which is why I > writing this email now. > > What do you think about removing QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER all over the place > for 5.1 ?
It has served no purpose for a while. The only possible reason _for_ keeping it is that we might need some similar hook in those location for some not-yet-known feature at some point of time, but even then "near QT_{BEGIN,END}_NAMESPACE" would be a good enough approximation for the bulk of locations. So I am all for removing QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development