On 01/15/2013 05:15 PM, André Pönitz wrote:> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:09:48PM +0000, Ahumada Sergio wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While I was trying to mark tst_headers as significant again >> <https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTQAINFRA-324> I found out that I >> had to add some QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER macros to some headers. >> >> After some investigation and talks with Thiago, I realized this macro >> expands to nothing, so I decided to remove the check in tst_headers instead >> of adding the missing QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER macros >> <https://codereview.qt-project.org/44076>. >> >> So far, this change does not affect Qt in any way, but I now want to go a >> little bit further and remove the check in 'syncqt' >> <https://codereview.qt-project.org/44810> >> >> As the commit message says, this macro "might be removed", which is why I >> writing this email now. >> >> What do you think about removing QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER all over the place >> for 5.1 ? > > It has served no purpose for a while. > > The only possible reason _for_ keeping it is that we might need > some similar hook in those location for some not-yet-known feature > at some point of time, but even then "near QT_{BEGIN,END}_NAMESPACE" > would be a good enough approximation for the bulk of locations. > > So I am all for removing QT_{BEGIN,END}_HEADER. > > Andre'
Hi, The change has been approved so I'll stage it and will start removing the macro *usage* (not the definition from qglobal.h) all over the place on Monday. https://codereview.qt-project.org/44810 Cheers, -- Sergio Ahumada Release Engineer - Digia, Qt _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
