aacid added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> aheinecke wrote in document.cpp:1153 > Sure this would be nice but as I understand it this would mean making > FormFieldText (or the general FormField) a QObject. As this is public API i > shied away from such a solution. > > Should I change the patch to make FormFieldText a QObject with a textChanged > signal? API break is not a problem since i already had to break it recently. But on the other hand it will probably open a can of works since all the other document signals about forms should probably be formfield signals too, so i'd say i'm leaning towards ntot changing this. > aheinecke wrote in document.h:1200 > Ok. But if we make the FormField a QObject we won't need it anymore :-) > > Can you answer my question if making FormField a QObject would be ok? That > would probably give us the best flexibility for future changes so I would > like to do that. :-) I'm prety sure i answered that, but the answer is not there, i wonder if i was using two different windows to answer and that made one content get lost? Anyhow,will answer below. REPOSITORY R223 Okular REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D10048 To: aheinecke, #okular Cc: aacid, michaelweghorn, ngraham
