[Development] Perceptions/Understandings of the QML language [was: Question about Qt's future]

[Koehne Kai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia.com at qt-project.org] On
> Behalf Of Andre Ponitz
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 11:34 PM
> To: Alan Alpert
> Cc: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Perceptions/Understandings of the QML language
> [was: Question about Qt's future]
> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:12:47AM -0700, Alan Alpert wrote:
> > Yes, I agree that more rigorous and agreed definitions would be
> > helpful. It also takes time, and impedes innovation, so I'm not sure
> > if we're quite mature enough to "nail down" QML just yet. Should be
> > soon though, in the next few years.
> 
> To get this straight: After five years of development the "Maintainer" of the Qt
> Declarative module is neither able nor willing to give a simple definition of
> what "QML" is.

Come on Andre, ad hominem attacks do not help. I'd expect better from you as a "Maintainer" yourself (quotes added on purpose).

On to the topic: QML is what the QML parser accepts (that is, JSON like declarative syntax + JavaScript in certain places). No, there's no standard document for it (in case that's what you're after), but it has a well-defined grammar etc. Christian Kamm AFAIR planned a long time ago to add the grammar to the documentation, but I think that never was finished.

And, as always, the documentation can be improved ;)

The discussion so far was whether it makes sense to give the 'declarative' part alone a separate name (something we haven't done so far). I personally agree with Alan that it doesn't make much sense as long as the two parts are technically and practically inseparable. But I'm personally all for an experiment to come up with a more strict, declarative QML subset.

Regards

Kai