Re: [Development] [OS X]: native classes (widgets) used for QTabBar and QTabWidget?

2015-12-08 Thread Olivier Goffart
On Tuesday 8. December 2015 21:38:10 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > If I may, do you also know how it is determined whether or not push buttons > should show icons or not? There's no equivalent to > Qt::AA_DontShowIconsInMenus and I'm also trying to understand why certain > KF5 applications (using kdel

Re: [Development] [OS X]: native classes (widgets) used for QTabBar and QTabWidget?

2015-12-08 Thread René J . V . Bertin
Olivier Goffart wrote: Hi, > QWidgets (and QML) don't use native UI views. They draw everything themself. > The drawing is done in the style (qmacstyle_mac.mm in this case) > > So to repeat: > QTabBar::paintEvent asks the style to paint the tabs > QMacStyle::drawControl (see the case CE_TabBarTa

Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

2015-12-08 Thread Marc Mutz
On Tuesday 08 December 2015 15:52:06 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:39:25PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > > OK, last try: > > > > - auto everywhere in C++ means that the type of the rhs defines the > > type of the variable > > it starts with the fact that you didn't specify th

Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

2015-12-08 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 2015-12-08 09:52, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:39:25PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: >> - auto everywhere in C++ means that the type of the rhs defines the >> type of the variable > > it starts with the fact that you didn't specify that you mean just local > variables - it's

Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

2015-12-08 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:39:25PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote: > OK, last try: > > - auto everywhere in C++ means that the type of the rhs defines the > type of the variable > it starts with the fact that you didn't specify that you mean just local variables - it's your unstated assumption. your tripl

Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

2015-12-08 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo
Il 08/12/2015 10:46, Ziller Eike ha scritto: I really wonder though, why it is possible to assign the wrong type to a_reference_ here, even if it is const ? I cannot do that with e.g. a std::vector (std::vector v; const std::vector &v2 = v;), so is that some funny thing with std::pair? Just

Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

2015-12-08 Thread Ziller Eike
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Knoll Lars wrote: > > On 07/12/15 15:44, "Development on behalf of Marc Mutz" > wrote: > > > >> On Monday 07 December 2015 13:48:58 Ziller Eike wrote: >>> I do not think that more usage of ‘auto’ will make any code (or >>> refactorings of it) ‘safer’. IMO this