[Development] What are differences/relations among CMake targets with "docs" word?
Hello, Qt Development Team. I noticed that there the following CMake targets with *"docs"* word in qt/qtbase: - *docs(_xxx)* - *generate_docs(_xxx)* - *html_docs(_xxx)* - *install_docs(_xxx)* - *install_html_docs(_xxx)* - *install_qch_docs(_xxx)* - *prepare_docs(_xxx)* - *qch_docs(_xxx)* I wondered what are differences/relations among them? [image: image.png] Besides, I found that both *html_docs(_xxx)* and *docs(_xxx)* generate the same HTML output, but there are lots of Warning Messages when building *html_docs(_xxx)*. For example, *warning: Can't link to 'index.html'* [image: image.png] --- Haowei Hsu -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt)
On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 01:55:05 PDT Ivan Solovev via Development wrote: > > BTW, this needs to integrate with QEqualityOperatorForType and > > QLessThanOperatorForType in qmetatype.h. I don't think there's any work > > for > > you other than verifying. > > I was not even aware of them, thanks! A brief look at the code shows that > they shouldn't be affected, but I'll update the Jira ticket to keep them > in mind. I wasn't either. I went looking for qLess, which existed for Qt 3, 4 and 5 for Q(Value)Map, and found them. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] Failed to build Qt6 Documentation from qt/qtbase sources?
On 8/1/23 14:22, Haowei Hsu wrote: However, it turns out that there is an error in the Step 7: You're doing a prefix build [1] but you did not build & install before building the docs. The error indicates a missing file in the install prefix. Try a non-prefix build instead. Without configure, you can enable that by setting FEATURE_developer_build=ON. Best, Joerg [1] https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Build_System_Glossary#Prefix_Build [2] https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Build_System_Glossary#Non-prefix_Build -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt)
> Every pair? Under what conditions do we need to implement heterogeneous > comparisons, outside of the primitives? Well, it was not a very precise wording from my side. What I mean is that we need to handle every class with existing relational operators. Which looks like a lot of work, and adding a new function overload on top of it makes it even worse. I also had in mind cases like "QPoint vs QPointF" or "QSize vs QSizeF", but I now see that we do not explicitly provide operators for such comparisons. Instead, we rely on the implicit constructors to do the conversion. > BTW, this needs to integrate with QEqualityOperatorForType and > QLessThanOperatorForType in qmetatype.h. I don't think there's any work for > you other than verifying. I was not even aware of them, thanks! A brief look at the code shows that they shouldn't be affected, but I'll update the Jira ticket to keep them in mind. -- Ivan Solovev Senior Software Engineer The Qt Company GmbH Erich-Thilo-Str. 10 12489 Berlin, Germany ivan.solo...@qt.io www.qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B From: Development on behalf of Edward Welbourne via Development Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 9:17 AM To: Macieira, Thiago ; development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt) On Monday, 31 July 2023 02:36:41 PDT Ivan Solovev via Development wrote: >> Basically, what you suggest is that for every pair of comparable Qt >> types we would need to double the amount of work that we do - provide >> not only the helper functions for the macros, but also the overload >> for some public functions for the end-users. Thiago Macieira (31 July 2023 17:23) replied: > Every pair? Under what conditions do we need to implement > heterogeneous comparisons, outside of the primitives? Even with the > primitives, I don't see more than a handful of heterogeneous, between > integers and floating point, plus a few other dispatchers to avoid > ambiguous lookups for integer to integer. There'd also be our plethora of string types - but still, indeed, only a fairly limited set of cross-type comparisons. Eddy. -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt)
On Monday, 31 July 2023 02:36:41 PDT Ivan Solovev via Development wrote: >> Basically, what you suggest is that for every pair of comparable Qt >> types we would need to double the amount of work that we do - provide >> not only the helper functions for the macros, but also the overload >> for some public functions for the end-users. Thiago Macieira (31 July 2023 17:23) replied: > Every pair? Under what conditions do we need to implement > heterogeneous comparisons, outside of the primitives? Even with the > primitives, I don't see more than a handful of heterogeneous, between > integers and floating point, plus a few other dispatchers to avoid > ambiguous lookups for integer to integer. There'd also be our plethora of string types - but still, indeed, only a fairly limited set of cross-type comparisons. Eddy. -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
