1 Sep
2012
1 Sep
'12
2:05 a.m.
Hi all.
As you probably noticed, I tried to solve the problem with style QtCurve. One
of the problems was compiling with Qt3 instead of TQt3. Unexpected problem is
the automatic substitution TQt => Qt that performs moc-tqt / tmoc. It affects
not only the classes and names from TQt3/Qt3, but all - in this case also
TQtCurveStylePlugin, TQtCurveStyle, TQtCurveConfig. But tqt.h of course does
not care nothing about these classes. And thus bringing into conflict
results 'moc' and source files 'h' and 'cpp'.
Therefore I wanted to ask if anyone would have any objections if I'll revert
all classes TQtCurve* back to QtCurve*?
Slavek
--
1 Sep
1 Sep
2:14 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Can I revert TQtCurve names back to QtCurve?
Hi all.
As you probably noticed, I tried to solve the problem with style QtCurve.
One
of the problems was compiling with Qt3 instead of TQt3. Unexpected problem
is
the automatic substitution TQt => Qt that performs moc-tqt / tmoc. It
affects
not only the classes and names from TQt3/Qt3, but all - in this case also
TQtCurveStylePlugin, TQtCurveStyle, TQtCurveConfig. But tqt.h of course
does
not care nothing about these classes. And thus bringing into conflict
results 'moc' and source files 'h' and 'cpp'.
Therefore I wanted to ask if anyone would have any objections if I'll
revert
all classes TQtCurve* back to QtCurve*?
Slavek
--
I think the upstream QtCurve project is progressing for Qt4 and KDE4;
wouldn't the proposed rename bring our version into naming conflict with
their version?
Tim
2:15 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Can I revert TQtCurve names back to QtCurve?
Hi all.
As you probably noticed, I tried to solve the problem with style
QtCurve.
One
of the problems was compiling with Qt3 instead of TQt3. Unexpected
problem
is
the automatic substitution TQt => Qt that performs moc-tqt / tmoc. It
affects
not only the classes and names from TQt3/Qt3, but all - in this case
also
TQtCurveStylePlugin, TQtCurveStyle, TQtCurveConfig. But tqt.h of course
does
not care nothing about these classes. And thus bringing into conflict
results 'moc' and source files 'h' and 'cpp'.
Therefore I wanted to ask if anyone would have any objections if I'll
revert
all classes TQtCurve* back to QtCurve*?
Slavek
--
I think the upstream QtCurve project is progressing for Qt4 and KDE4;
wouldn't the proposed rename bring our version into naming conflict with
their version?
Tim
2:29 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Can I revert TQtCurve names back to QtCurve?
On Saturday 01 of September 2012 04:15:53 Timothy Pearson wrote:
I should mention that I am not opposed to renaming the
classes, I am just
wondering if there might be a better name that won't conflict with a
different project.
I believe that it is useful consensus to use name QtCurve because also
gtk2-engines-qtcurve refer to the same name QtCurve. Without having had
anything to do with QT3 / QT4 / KDE. And in same manner also our
tde-style-qtcurve refer to the same style name QtCurve.
Renaming TQtCurve* classes to QtCurve* is a simplification of a technical
problem with the automatic renaming TQt=>Qt during build along with Qt3.
Slavek
--
2:38 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Can I revert TQtCurve names back to QtCurve?
On Saturday 01 of September 2012 04:15:53 Timothy
Pearson wrote:
OK, works for me with the justification given above. Rename away. :-)
Tim
I should mention that I am not opposed to
renaming the classes, I am
just
wondering if there might be a better name that won't conflict with a
different project.
I believe that it is useful consensus to use name QtCurve because also
gtk2-engines-qtcurve refer to the same name QtCurve. Without having had
anything to do with QT3 / QT4 / KDE. And in same manner also our
tde-style-qtcurve refer to the same style name QtCurve.
Renaming TQtCurve* classes to QtCurve* is a simplification of a technical
problem with the automatic renaming TQt=>Qt during build along with Qt3.
Slavek
--
4265
days inactive
4265
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Slávek Banko -
Timothy Pearson