On Tuesday January 06 2015 13:07:02 David Faure wrote:
> It's wrong because it's fixing the symptom (null d pointer) instead of fixing
> the cause (using an action that was already deleted).
In an absolute sense you're right. But if this happens because of an
API/runtime marriage that's (almost
On Tuesday 06 January 2015 12:35:01 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Tuesday January 06 2015 11:36:18 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > And then the hackers' delight question:
> > Staring at the code at almost 3am this morning it occurred to me that
> > there is nothing wrong per se if QAction::isEnabled() r
On Tuesday January 06 2015 11:36:18 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> And then the hackers' delight question:
> Staring at the code at almost 3am this morning it occurred to me that there
> is nothing wrong per se if QAction::isEnabled() returns false if the d
> pointer is NULL (an invalid QAction canno
