That makes sense. Thanks all! :)
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 1:09 PM Volker Krause wrote:
>
> On Friday, 12 July 2019 11:24:35 CEST Harald Sitter wrote:
> > But why was that BIC to begin with? Which of the "don'ts" did it violate?
>
> IIUC re-implementing a virtual method from a base class (in absenc
On Friday, 12 July 2019 11:24:35 CEST Harald Sitter wrote:
> But why was that BIC to begin with? Which of the "don'ts" did it violate?
IIUC re-implementing a virtual method from a base class (in absence of
complications like multi-inheritance or co-variant return types) does not
change the ABI (
But why was that BIC to begin with? Which of the "don'ts" did it violate?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:18 AM Kai Uwe Broulik wrote:
>
> To avoid situations like [1] and [2]
>
> [1]
> https://cgit.kde.org/kiconthemes.git/commit/?id=1e9af6c54470e890597739f8f2189b0743a00b6f
> [2]
> https://cgit.kde.or
To avoid situations like [1] and [2]
[1]
https://cgit.kde.org/kiconthemes.git/commit/?id=1e9af6c54470e890597739f8f2189b0743a00b6f
[2]
https://cgit.kde.org/kiconthemes.git/commit/?id=083bb8a80fd5941e6fcbaf1ec12a08d8f8c881a5
Am 12.07.19 um 11:14 schrieb Harald Sitter:
Hey
our binary compatibi
Hey
our binary compatibility page [1] states that one should
"reimplement event in QObject-derived classes, even if the body for
the function is just calling the base class' implementation."
Does anyone know the reason this helps maintain BC?
[1] https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compat
