On 01/07/2012 02:18 PM, Rick Stockton wrote:
> << SNIP! >>
>
> Anyway, once we have the owner, we have a byte of bit flags (mostly
> unused):
> value in the lowest bit: whether the shortcut is currently Disabled
> (0 == Enabled, 1 == Disabled)
> value next bit: whether Qt::LeftButton is being
On Saturday, 7 de January de 2012 16.56.19, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Friday, January 06, 2012 19:09:26 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > If the method accepted a QFile pointer before, then a class derived from
> > QFile will automatically downcast to the type.
>
> This could be a downcast-vs-upcast defi
Before I begin- I am extremely interested in any upcoming re-factor
scheme, which could 'share' as much code as possible (between QtGui and
Widget-based shortcuts) at a 'higher" level.
With that said, however, my "little" project won't be sharing very much
of the current code, because nearly al
On Friday, January 06, 2012 19:09:26 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> If the method accepted a QFile pointer before, then a class derived from
> QFile will automatically downcast to the type.
This could be a downcast-vs-upcast definition mismatch in your understandings?
I think David is saying that a me
On 1/7/12 1:58 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Saturday, 7 de January de 2012 01.03.50, David Faure wrote:
>> Shouldn't we clean that up for Qt5 and just use a bool for the contains
>> method again? The Qt4 API ensures that nobody still has if
>>(contains()==2)
>> in their code anyway.
>
>I
