On Friday, July 13, 2012 09:30:44 Thiago Macieira wrote: > 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.
I added some unit tests for this case: https://codereview.qt-project.org/30762 Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
