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

Sze Howe Koh szehowe.koh at gmail.com
Thu May 1 14:28:20 CEST 2014

On 29 April 2014 15:17, Koehne Kai <Kai.Koehne at digia.com> wrote:
> 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.

*.qmltypes and *.qbs files already use a "declarative-only" dialect, right?

I think giving the declarative part of the language an identity/name
its own can help users better envisage the line between the
declarative bits and the imperative bits. (Disclaimer: I'm no
psychologist; this is a gut feeling).

It will also resolve, once and for all, any lingering confusions and
disagreements on what we mean by "QML". (Case study: See the comments
at https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,84256)


More information about the Development mailing list