On Monday, 4 March 2019 13:27:42 PST André Pönitz wrote: > Truly personally, I'd even go for > "no deprecation at all *for purely cosmetical reasons*" as I've seen > too many taking route
That's a good point. Often we deprecate things because we had a misspelling or failed to take our own naming convention into account. So maybe what we need is a two-level warning system: one for bad things that you really should be doing differently and one for cosmetic things. Definition of cosmetic: a typedef or a function that will be inline in 6.0. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
