pid_t or Q_PID?

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:17:15AM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> But if that is no option then I suggest to change it to return a
> qint64 and have an #ifdef in the implementation:
> 
> #if defined(Q_OS_WIN)
>     return process->pid()->dwProcessId;
> #else
>     return process->pid();
> #endif
> 
actually, i'd do that with kprocess already. that means that any api
that takes a process pointer needs a KProcess *, not a QProcess *, which
is a good idea anyway, given the amount of api i'm overshadowing.

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.