aacid added 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.

  R223 Okular


To: aheinecke, #okular
Cc: aacid, michaelweghorn, ngraham

Reply via email to