> On 22 Dec 2023, at 13:54, Tor Arne Vestbø via Development > <development@qt-project.org> 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.
I’m not 100% sure about this. “Radius" without any pre/postfix is IMO somewhat confusing on a rectangle. HTML uses “borderRadius”, which I actually like quite a bit. And as it’s a new property, it would also not cause conflicts with the old name. Cheers, Lars > > 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. > > Tor Arne > > -- > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org <mailto:Development@qt-project.org> > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
