Open tronical opened 3 weeks ago
Should we wait until this is no longer experimental perhaps? Or is there a way to mark it as such?
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but if we every want to ask folks for feedback on an API, I think it makes sense that they have API documentation to read to learn how to use it... (yes, we should also do that for slint-esp).
We could document that in the testing namespace, that it's experimental. Or have everything under slint::experimental::
(so slint::experimental::testing:...
).
Having it under slint::experimental::
is an option, but it is more complicated than just adding an #ifdef as then we will have to search and replace once we move it out of experimental
Yep, I also don't like slint::experimental
. Ok, I'll add a bit comment for the docs for the slint::testing
namespace it's conditional - better than nothing IMO and good to have docs for this API (the doc building also helps us find issues).
What do you think about this compromise?
(One caveat here is that while the AccessibleRole is now under slint::testing
, it's not surrounded by #ifdefs
, but maybe that's an acceptable corner?)
This adds the testing API, but the AccessibleRole is still not documented. It needs to go into a public header file, otherwise doxygen won't look at it. I think I'll try to hack it that it goes into
slint::testing
insideslint_enums.h
.