graesslin added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> sebas wrote in input.cpp:1394 > Wouldn't removeAll() be a bit safer here, or is there a good reason to have > spies enqueued twice? (In that case, duplicates should probably be checked > before insertion. > > In any case, it should be consistent with the filters' behaviour, so just > something to think about. Yep agree. Having multiple filters/spies installed doesn't make sense. Due to that I chose remove one here. But the filters should be adjusted. Not sure about checking proof to inserting. It's internal API, so I don't see a real benefit in adding the runtime cost. An asset could be a possibility, though. > sebas wrote in input.h:192 > Code example would be nice here. Not critical, since it's not public API > anyway, but would help *me* personally to understand a bit better how to use > it. Yeah I'm aware that std::bind is something we hardly see in kde code yet (Ivan excluded). The example ae in this change. Giving an explicit code example here - difficult. Too much template magic and I do hope that there are booked and online resources which can explain it better than I could;-) My suggestion would be to read the code example and check with the c++ documentation what it is doing REPOSITORY R108 KWin BRANCH input-event-spy REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D3863 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.kde.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: graesslin, #kwin, #plasma, sebas Cc: sebas, plasma-devel, kwin, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, hardening, jensreuterberg, abetts
