XCB vs. KModifierKeyInfoProvider

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday 02 September 2013 10:39:53 you wrote:
> On Monday 02 September 2013 09:05:27 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > 3) I just don't like it and would feel very uncomfortable given that we
> > don't  have unit tests and that this could break in future if xkb.h
> > becomes
> > available.
> 
> Why not declare the struct but with a different name? Then it can't clash
> with future xkb.h versions.
Well yes, that's what Qt does and that's what I don't like. But if that is an 
acceptable solution I will give it a try and add a max extension version 
number to ensure that the event structure doesn't change.

Cheers
Martin

P.S.: looking at lxr it seems that there used to be a unit test. What happened 
to it? Was it just forgotten to be moved?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20130902/167e100a/attachment.sig>