On Friday, July 13, 2012 12:00:07 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 11.51.07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > You can't connect to the private signal because the type
> > > QPrivateSignal is private.
> >
> > I added some unit tests for this case:
> >
> > https://codereview.q
On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 11.51.07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > You can't connect to the private signal because the type QPrivateSignal is
> > private.
>
> I added some unit tests for this case:
>
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/30762
Why did the change have to be in Q_OBJECT? Couldn't
On Friday, July 13, 2012 08:33:42 Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 July 2012 18:50:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> So, either the code should stay as is - leaving the signals private
> >> and
> >> making function pointe
On Friday, July 13, 2012 09:30:44 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 08.33.42, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Olivier Goffart
wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 11 July 2012 18:50:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > >> So, either the code sh
On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 10.07.04, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > > signals:
> > > void somethingChanged();
> > > void somethingChanged(int, QPrivateSignal);
> > >
> > > You can't connect to the private signal because the type QPrivateSignal
> > > is
> > > private.
> >
> > Yes that's
On Friday 13 July 2012 09:57:49 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Friday 13 July 2012 09:30:44 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 08.33.42, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
> > > Is this really important given that we are in feature freeze? Changes
> > > to moc, however small, is no
On Friday 13 July 2012 09:30:44 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 08.33.42, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
> > Is this really important given that we are in feature freeze? Changes
> > to moc, however small, is not advisable at all.
This is why we brought the subject on th
On sexta-feira, 13 de julho de 2012 08.33.42, Girish Ramakrishnan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 July 2012 18:50:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> So, either the code should stay as is - leaving the signals private and
> >> making function
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 July 2012 18:50:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> So, either the code should stay as is - leaving the signals private and
>> making function pointer connects not work, or the patches should be
>> applied, making function poin
On Wednesday 11 July 2012 18:50:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 18:40:10 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > I don't see the point of a private signal.
> >
> > QAbstractitemModel is abusing it. Just make them regular signals.
Do you see the point of the private or protected keyword
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 18:40:10 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 11 de julho de 2012 18.13.07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > With the function-pointer-based QObject::connect syntax, it is currently
> > not possible to connect to the private signals on QAbstractItemModel
On quarta-feira, 11 de julho de 2012 18.13.07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> With the function-pointer-based QObject::connect syntax, it is currently not
> possible to connect to the private signals on QAbstractItemModel
> (rowsInserted() etc), QAbstractState (entered() and exited()) and
> Q
Hi there,
With the function-pointer-based QObject::connect syntax, it is currently not
possible to connect to the private signals on QAbstractItemModel
(rowsInserted() etc), QAbstractState (entered() and exited()) and
QAbstractTransition (triggered()).
Patches for fixing that are here:
* ht
13 matches
Mail list logo
