Hi Thiago, On Wednesday September 26 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote: > But note that there's one stricter requirement: the forwards compatibility > that applies within a patch series. Adding this new virtual within the same > patch series means a new, public symbol, which could get used in > applications.
Excellent point. I didn't think of this one. > If there's a sensible implementation that does not require overriding the > virtual, then we should use it. Otherwise, I'd say go for it. Seeing as the Qt 4 fix is two lines vs. two commits for Qt 5, and in the light of the fwd-compatibility requirement, I'd say we play it safe and stay with the two-line fix. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
