On 11/26/2014 1:39 PM, Tomasz Siekierda wrote: > On 26 November 2014 at 13:29, Attila Csipa <q...@csipa.in.rs> wrote: >> The good news is your 2.0 statement will import whatever the latest >> implementation registers for the 2.0 version. The ((un)intended?) >> side-effect of this is that the backward compatibility is not 100% - if >> you relied on something that has changes/fixes in the newer >> implementation, there is no going back other than downgrading your Qt >> version. > If this is so, then I wonder if it won't be better to introduce/ > change the syntax to something like this: > import at least QtQuick 2.0 > or (probably better) > require QtQuick 2.0 > > meaning "include the newest feature set available, while 2.0 is the > absolute minimum". It describes the reality a bit better. When people
No, the import version specifies the exact feature set you'll get - as said, there are no wildcards/ranges/macros. I was told this is intentional, to guarantee compatibility. FWIW I still disagree with the way it's done, but there you have it, I suspect this will be coming up again and again. Some history of the matter and attemps at having this altered: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.devel/8464 Best regards, Attila _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest