On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:55:10 +0100 André Somers <an...@familiesomers.nl> wrote:
> Constantin Makshin schreef op 21-3-2014 04:46: > > I don't see anything bad even in redefining the "qApp" macro itself > > (inclusion guards in Qt headers will protect your redefinition from > > being reverted) instead of inventing your "myApp" one. > I think it may be confusing to do so. The meaning of qApp will be > different depending on what includes you did in the file you call it > from (or recursively in the other files you have included). I don't > think that that is very good API, and prefer to make my own myApp > define instead. Then, it is always clear what will be returned. I was just about to reply in a similar fashion. :) There is no inherent advantage in redefining the qApp macro, and using myApp just seems to make for a better readable code, in my opinion. Anyway, thanks both of you for your replies. Regards, -- Andrej _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
