private slots

[Olivier Goffart]

Le mercredi 3 janvier 2007 16:05, Simon Hausmann a écrit :
[...]
> And of course in general I suggest not to have any private methods in our
> public API at all. Putting it into your d-pointer gives you more
> flexibility in the future to change the implementation. There is really no
> good reason for exporting private functions.

From http://developer.kde.org/documentation/other/binarycompatibility.html

You can ... remove private non-virtual functions if they are not called by any 
inline functions.

So this still give us the possibility to change the implementation.

I think that choosing to have private member in the class itself or in the 
Private class is a matter of preference and choice.

Anyway, if that document is wrong, then, yes, we must do that in all our 
classes (and correct the document).

-- 
Gof
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070103/16baf3b2/attachment.sig>