On 11/06/2019 12.30, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: > Il 11/06/19 17:28, Matthew Woehlke ha scritto: >> [...] would it make sense to move the documentation [of >> Q_NAMESPACE, Q_ENUM, etc.] to QMetaObject? > > Well, also Q_OBJECT itself, Q_SIGNALS/Q_SLOTS, etc. appear in > qobjectdefs.h, yet obviously the right place for documented them is > QObject.
Agreed in both respects. (Yes, it's correct. Yes, it is obviously so.) > So I think the other macros just followed suit. Maybe it's > possible to specify that macro for multiple targets, but is it worth it? (For context: https://github.com/Kitware/seal-tk/pull/28.) As it stands, the doc "implies" that `#include <QObject>` is required to use Q_NAMESPACE and friends. But this is overkill, and in (current) reality, <QMetaObject> is sufficient. So, my questions are: 1. Is it really Qt's intent that using Q_NAMESPACE, etc. requires including <QObject>? 2. If not, is it worth tweaking the documentation to make it clearer that <QMetaObject> is sufficient? (I don't see why we would need to "specify that macro for multiple targets"... just "move" it to QMetaObject. It should be clear that <QObject> includes <QMetaObject>.) -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
