On 22-12-2023 13:54, Tor Arne Vestbø via Development wrote:
On 22 Dec 2023, at 13:20, Giuseppe D'Angelo via
Development<development@qt-project.org> wrote:
Il 22/12/23 11:15, André Somers ha scritto:
I can see two options. The simplest option is to have a `radii`
property, which is a grouped property containing the `topLeft`,
`topRight`, `bottomLeft` and `bottomRight` properties as a floating
point value as we have now. I think that would be cleaner than the
current state of things.
While at it, it should be aptly named `cornersRadii` or similar.
`radius` has always violated Qt API guidelines. A rectangle doesn't have a
radius. We shouldn't be doing the same mistake again.
Radius is a well established term for this in Qt, and other UI frameworks. A
key principle in Qt’s API design is familiarity and consistency.
We can change the `radius` property from a qreal into a group property with
left/rigth/top/bottom, similar to anchors. We can detect in the setRadius
setter if the incoming argument is a real, and apply that to all of the
corners. That would be backwards compatible, and give a more granular API for
those that need it.
And what type would the radius property return then? I guess it would
have to be the grouped type. But that would break all code that
currently creates a binding on radius expecting it to be a real.
André
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
