On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 08.33.42, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Olivier Goffart <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 July 2012 18:50:15 Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> So, either the code should stay as is - leaving the signals private and > >> making function pointer connects not work, or the patches should be > >> applied, making function pointer connects work. > >> > >> Making the signals public is not an option for me. > > > > I personally beleive allowing the new syntax is more important than > > keeping > > those signal private. > > Anyway, i'm quite happy with the current implementation in moc. > > Is this really important given that we are in feature freeze? Changes > to moc, however small, is not advisable at all.
As I wrote in the change, this breaks if there are overloads to the signal:
signals:
void somethingChanged();
void somethingChanged(int, QPrivateSignal);
You can't connect to the private signal because the type QPrivateSignal is
private.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
