On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Marco Martin wrote:
> right now all the classes are still under the Plasma namespace, and should
> probably be renamed and cmakes to be cleaned up (especially because it
> would
> be used by plasma too to the two identically named classes, new and
> deprecated
> w
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:20:10 Marco Martin wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 September 2014 11:06:50 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > Is the name ok for everybody? potential name clashes?
> >
> > as it used to be namespaces before, what about using a namespace KPackage
> > and just call the classes:
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 11:06:50 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > Is the name ok for everybody? potential name clashes?
>
> as it used to be namespaces before, what about using a namespace KPackage
> and just call the classes:
> KPackage::Package
> KPackage::PackageStructure
> KPackage::PackageTra
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 10:40:35 Marco Martin wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 14:19:44 Marco Martin wrote:
> > right now all the classes are still under the Plasma namespace, and should
> > probably be renamed and cmakes to be cleaned up (especially because it
> > would be used by plas
On Tuesday 16 September 2014 14:19:44 Marco Martin wrote:
> right now all the classes are still under the Plasma namespace, and should
> probably be renamed and cmakes to be cleaned up (especially because it would
> be used by plasma too to the two identically named classes, new and
> deprecated wo
Hi all,
first, brief introductionon what this is:
during a Bof about scripting in applications at Akademy it occurred that some
applications may be interested by the functionality provided by
Plasma::Package, provided it was on a lower tier.
Since I already had kindof the idea of making Package
