On Wednesday 29 August 2012 16:55:31 Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: > On Wednesday 29. August 2012 14.46.17 ext Olivier Goffart wrote: > > Reviving old thread because it was discussed on IRC: > > > > On Friday 08 June 2012 10:31:31 Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > What can go wrong then? From nothing to crash, it depends on the flag. > > > For > > > > > > example if the flag is just an optimization hint, like > > > "typeHasThreadSafeConstructor" then it is quite safe because we could > > > "downgrade" the registered data to a safe value, it would work, maybe a > > > bit slower :-). On other hand isPointerToGObject doesn't have such safe > > > value, because it points to a feature that is rather a type description. > > > > What's wrong by saying that when there are "binary incompatible" > > registration, we keep the maximum of flag set? So the second registration > > which say the type is a PointerToGObject override the previous one. > > > > The code that expect PointerToGObject to be set for a given type will > > continue to work because that library should register that type. > > Hi, > > PointerToGObject is a boolean how would you say which value is supperior? > > if (flags & PointerToGObject) > storeDataInPointerContainer(object) > else > storeDataInNormalContainer(object) > > It means that the flag can change during execution of an application. I > would say no for such solution ;-).
I see... that would indeed be a problem. But if we are aware of it we can still make good use of PointerToGObject _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
