On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 20:00:39 you wrote: > An alternate approach is to make a header specific to QTestLib which > ensures that modules privates are not required.
This is very hacky. I prefer to simply move it from qpa/ to the same location as the rest of the public headers. However, a solution acceptable for everyone else which achieves the 'modules privates are not required' goal is acceptable for me too. > This approach keeps > QWSI as QPA API and very minor change. I still don't see what makes it a QPA API, but ok. > We can call this forwarding > header QTestLibWindowSystemInterface or something. Comments ? (of > course, need to have some minor changes to syncqt to not emit warning > code etc). > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,30643 You don't use the name QTestLibWindowSystemInterface in the patch. Is that a mistake or does it make the patch more complex? I think we'll just have to hear rationale from the people who want it to be private before we figure this out. Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
