[PATCH] New signal for KKeySequenceWidget

[Thomas McGuire]

Hello,

On Tuesday 04 September 2007, Allen Winter wrote:
> On Thursday 23 August 2007 7:31:21 am Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > Le mercredi 22 août 2007, Andreas Hartmetz a écrit :
> > > First off, minimizing porting work at the cost of API quality is not a
> > > priority for me.
> > > The safest and most explicit API that I can come up with and that
> > > doesn't require subclassing is this:
> > >
> > > public slots:
> > > void denyValidation();
> > >
> > > signals:
> > > validationHook(const QKeySequence &newSeq);
> > >
> > > It is very straightforward and you don't get tempted to do things you
> > > should not be doing - i.e. changing the shortcut in response to the
> > > user choosing a different one. Although you can still do exactly this
> > > if you need to. Would this API also work in the given use case?
> >
> > Other possibilities:  (I'm not saying they are batter ;-) )
> >
> > signals:
> >  void validationHook(const QKeySequence &newSeq, bool *hook);
> >
> > or even
> >
> > signals:
> >  bool validationHook(const QKeySequence &newSeq);
> >
> Was your KKeySequenceWidget patch committed?
It was committed, and I already ported KMail to use the new signal.
Thanks Andreas!

Regards,
Thomas