> > > I understand others' concerns about "load-performance". <snip>,
> The concern about load-performance isn't about "users now have an > informed choice between faster development speed or faster runtime > speed". The concern is about people using import Qt 5.0 because it's > convenient, and then getting upset when it's too slow at runtime and > they don't realize why. We can offer power users this convenient > choice when we have a solution for ensuring average users don't > accidentally cripple themselves without knowing what they did wrong. > Fair point: "Be clean up-front so you don't need to clean up later." > > Another option might be a "special-version-number" like "latest" that > > resolves to the "latest-version": > > > > // (fictional) import-latest: > > import QtQuick.Window latest > > You're basically asking to opt-out of the versioning system. If we > thought that was a good idea, we wouldn't require all module imports > to be versioned. Well, golly, when you say it like *that*... ;-)) > Short explanation is that your deployed applications > could easily break and there's no real need to skip versioning. Long > explanation is here: http://alan.imagin-itis.net/?p=322 . > That link is a good read. You addressed this point (in the link above) with: *Q:* What if I always want the latest and greatest? *ML:* You don’t. <snip> I now withdraw my comment, and concede that specific-versioning-on-import is a, "good idea". --charley
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
