> On March 11, 2014, 11:17 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > src/kcompletionbox.h, line 228 > > <https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116747/diff/1/?file=253404#file253404line228> > > > > I wouldn't leave the implementation here. Move it to the .cpp file, > > this way it can be changed in the future, if it's required for some reason. > > > > Also there's a typo in the method name. > > David Gil Oliva wrote: > Alex Merry inlined deprecated methods in > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116012 , so I thought that it was the way > to go... > > Alex Merry wrote: > Well, there's a balance to be struck: putting them in the header ensures > there is no runtime cost to programs that don't use the deprecated methods, > as the code should be optimised away, that the library is always > binary-compatible even if you compile it with deprecated code disabled > (*_NO_DEPRECATED) and makes the header code document how to replace existing > calls. The downsides are an inability to fix the code later and an inability > to access members of a private d-pointer class. Neither of those are an > issue here, as we're just renaming the method. > > tl;dr: I disagree with Aleix, and think it should stay in the header. > > Oh, and Aleix: could you please select the whole method when you're doing > a comment like this, rather than just the first line? Otherwise it's a pain > to see what you're referring to. Thanks :-) > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > Well, I wouldn't bother about runtime penalty given that it's deprecated > and we shouldn't be using it anyway. Also we can't make assumptions on how > things are going to be optimized. > > But it's ok, I don't think it's worth discussing further, I doubt this is > going to be a problem in the future.
I mean the runtime penalty for things that *don't* use it. If it's header-only, it doesn't go in the library, so there is no load-time symbol-lookup penalty, and no code-size penalty. Admittedly, both of those are probably negligible... - Alex ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116747/#review52703 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 11, 2014, 10:32 p.m., David Gil Oliva wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116747/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 11, 2014, 10:32 p.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks. > > > Repository: kcompletion > > > Description > ------- > > Clean up KCompletionBox > > -canceled() -> cancelled (private method) > -Deprecate sizeAndPosition() --> resizeAndReposition() > -Remove old comments and commented-out code > -Move some slots to be normal methods, since they don't seem to be able to > work as slots. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/kcompletionbox.h 09b7527 > src/kcompletionbox.cpp 92e87b3 > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116747/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > It builds and tests pass. > > > Thanks, > > David Gil Oliva > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
