On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 18:22:20 Michael Pyne wrote: > On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 00:12:42 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 23:46:55 Stephen Kelly wrote: > > > What I was getting at was really just that if the recommendation is > > > to > > > use K_GLOBAL_STATIC, but then QBasicAtomicPointer gets moved to some > > > _p.h file, that is screwed too. Then using K_GLOBAL_STATIC is not a > > > good > > > recommendation. The recommendation should be to use something that > > > doesn't use Qt internals. > > > > QBasicAtomicPointer is a base class of the public class QAtomicPointer. > > > > The split between them is that one is POD, the other isn't. > > Well to play devil's advocate, is it not possible in theory to make > QAtomicPointer derive from QBasicAtomicPointer2 in Qt 4.8, in a way such > that users of *only* QAtomicPointer still worked but users of > QBasicAtomicPointer broke?
It is.
So what you want is for QBasicAtomicXXX to be documented? Sounds fair.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
