> On 21 May 2026, at 20:07, Edward Welbourne via Development > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Artem Dyomin (21 May 2026 12:49) wrote: > >> Well, according to the input, the word "experimental" brings messages >> regarding temporary status and transferring to public API in the future, >> that doesn't fit well to some cases. To address this, I'd rather choose >> the word that reflects its semiprivate status and limited compatibility >> guarantees. >> >> * protected - for me, it doesn't sound clear in terms of headers >> * limited_compat - looks good, but doesn't reflect private status >> * semiprivate - perhaps better as it reflects what it does >> >> So, what about "semiprivate"? > > It's a half-way decent answer. > One other name springs to mind, more apt at least than "protected", but > likewise inspired by terms from C++: "mutable" - after all, we're > talking about APIs on which we don't promise compatibility - they may > change from one release to the next. > > Eddy.
One idea I just had was to use the major.minor version number of Qt. #include <QtGui/6.12/qrhi.h> The advantage is that you are clearly seeing that you are using an API that is specific to that Qt version. The disadvantage is that you have to change the include statement when upgrading Qt version, but that might as much be an advantage because it creates awareness - just because things still compile doesn't necessary mean that they also still work the same way. And it can be made very simple by having a single wrapper-header for a project. Failing that my preference would be either unstable, unsupported, or semiprivate Volker -- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
