On Monday 10 August 2015 14:38:34 David Faure wrote: > On Monday 10 August 2015 13:23:05 Volker Krause wrote: > > Yep, and there are more reasons for not using nested classes for this and > > following the Qt scheme instead, such as the Q_D/Q_Q macros for example. > > Right. > > > For existing code it is however a quite substantial (although not > > particularly hard) change, I'm not sure if this is worth the effort, > > compared to the Q_DECL_HIDDEN approach. > > Could be scripted, it's all just search-replace, basically. > > > > > I've started doing this in PIM code that > > > > isn't covered by BC guarantees yet. Do we also want this to be done in > > > > already released frameworks, although it is technically BIC? > > > > > > Classes called "*Private" are not part of our BIC promises. > > > > Ok, then I'll fix this in KF5 as well. Do you want individual review > > requests for these changes or can I just push those directly? > > Trivial pre-approved changes don't need review requests. > > But I volunteer to do it right, instead. Such scripts are quick to write.... > ... here you go (also committed to kde-dev-scripts). > > Sample diff attached, it compiles.
Awesome, thanks! I'll borrow that script for PIM then :) _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
