Since we have public headers and private headers, and these sit somewhere in between, how about “protected headers”?
“Experimental” and the likes suggest to me that this is a temporary state, and that’s not always true. Cheers, André Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity > On 21 May 2026, at 11:09, Artem Dyomin via Development > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In Qt, we have semi-private functionality for rhi, qpa, ssg, that contain a > disclaimer in headers and docs limiting SC and BC guarantees, and requiring > to link the private part of the module. The headers are deployed as > <QtGui/rhi/qrhi.h> etc. > We want to add similar headers for Multimedia with GStreamer functionality. A > good idea is having a good name for this kind of API (e.g. experimental) and > deploy the headers as <QtModule/experimental/qheader.h>. > The current plan is deploying new gstreamer-related headers under the new > name, and then consider transferring existing headers to the new approach > (with keeping old ones). > > In my view, the term "experimental" is the best as the term "experimental" in > C++ highly correlates with how Qt declares it in terms of SC and BC. > A discussion has been started in the CR adding "experimental". > https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/736307 > > Other proposals are "semiprivate", "nocompat", "unstable" or similar. > > Are you agreed that <QtModule/experimental/qheader.h> works fine for these > semi-private headers? > > > Confidential > -- > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
-- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
