> On Wednesday 24 August 2011 21:45:11 Harri Porten wrote: > > I have a question on namespaces: > > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, [email protected] wrote: > > > Qt Add-On modules would work as follows: > > > [...] > > > - C++ namespace is required and it is "QtPim" for the Qt Pim add-on > > > module etc. We can have convenient header files for forward > > > declarations. > > > - former Qt4 modules don't need a namespace > > > > Would this exception also apply to *new* modules created for *old* > > classes? As an example I am referring to the "QSettings moved away" > > thread which contained the suggestion of some sort of dumping ground > > add-on.
Olivier wrote: > I suppose the goal of this exception is to keep source compatibility. (forward > delcaration would break if the namespace change) So I would say yes, > modules which are meant to keep source compatibility should not have a > namespace I agree, that was the goal of the exception. Regards, Henry _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
