On 19/11/14 09:46, "Giuseppe D'Angelo" wrote:
>Il 19/11/2014 09:35, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
>> On Wednesday 19 November 2014 09:22:46 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>>> Was adding a new override in the middle of an hierarchy safe? Or
>>> subclasses in user code will now require a recompilation? (No
Il 19/11/2014 09:35, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
On Wednesday 19 November 2014 09:22:46 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
Was adding a new override in the middle of an hierarchy safe? Or
subclasses in user code will now require a recompilation? (Not a big
deal, I don't expect that many QRubberBand subcla
On Wednesday 19 November 2014 09:22:46 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Was adding a new override in the middle of an hierarchy safe? Or
> subclasses in user code will now require a recompilation? (Not a big
> deal, I don't expect that many QRubberBand subclasses with a timerEvent
> override...)
Over
Thanks for the simplified diff, question:
index b603415..7193f69 100644
--- a/src/widgets/widgets/qrubberband.h
+++ b/src/widgets/widgets/qrubberband.h
@@ -196,6 +196,7 @@ protected:
#endif
void keyPressEvent(QKeyEvent *);
void changeEvent(QEvent *);
+void timerEvent(QTimerEvent
Looks good to me.
Lars
On 19/11/14 01:23, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Tuesday 18 November 2014 16:38:54 Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
>>
>
>--
>Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
> Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
On Tuesday 18 November 2014 16:38:54 Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
>
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
diff --git a/src/widgets/accessible/qaccessiblewidget.h b/src/widgets/accessible/qaccessiblewidget.h
index 819bb5b..6b07d
