On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 03:18:16PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > 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.
That sounds reasonable, even with some restriction on the size or complexity of a potential inline function replacement. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
