On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Piotr Galiszewski <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/8/3 Daniel Burrows <[email protected]>: >> Just some minor nits. Also, this doesn't seem to be dependent on its >> parents. Is it OK if I cherry-pick it onto master? (you'll need to >> rewrite its branch to drop this patch, then) I did a quick test on my >> machine, and this patch seems to be perfectly happy sitting on top of >> current master instead of on 002.1-packages_tab. >> > > I have no problems with this ;) For testing purposes I am creating > code snapshots, as Arthur suggested me on DebConf
Meaning what? > [snip] >>> + /** \brief Register a slot to be invoked when the defined filter >>> changes. */ >>> + sigc::connection connect_filter_changed(const sigc::slot<void> &slot); >>> + >>> + sigc::signal1<void, std::string> name_changed_signal; >>> + sigc::signal0<void> filter_changed_signal; >> >> Would it make sense to pass along the filter with this signal, for >> consistency? >> > > It is not necessary, as this signal is only used for invalidating > model filtering. But I can do this I understand that it's not necessary (either way); it just seems like something that makes sense. Daniel _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
