rjvbb added a comment.
This is about better and more concise English. The queued connection is the
indirect explanation why the patch is necessary, and thus comes after the
direct explanation (the fact that there may be pending signals). Think of it as
a courtesy to people who want to get to the point first and maybe deal with the
finer detail later.
The problem with this whole comment is that it's long and not very easy to
follow for devs who are not (very) familiar with the code already (and those
who are might not need all the detail). Rereading it with after-bedtime eyes I
think you should probably just leave only the 1st sentence. The explanation why
you can end up "here" after close was called could be put in the commit
message, or as a "warning" above the connect() call that creates the connection.
Come to think of it, your patch could take the form below because there is
already a check of `notification`:
if (Q_UNLIKELY(!notification)) {
return;
} else if ((notification->flags() & KNotification::LoopSound)) {
m->play();
return;
}
Maybe merge your comment with the one about "if the sound is short enough"
because I from what I understand that describes more or less the same situation.
REPOSITORY
R289 KNotifications
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D11891
To: aacid, #frameworks, cullmann, rjvbb
Cc: cfeck, rjvbb, mpyne, michaelh, ngraham
