extragear/sdk/kdevelop/languages/cpp

[Milian Wolff]

David Nolden, 12.04.2010:
> 2010/4/12 Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de>:
> > SVN commit 1113952 by mwolff:
> > 
> > Change our custom implementation of the Q_PRIVATE_SLOT to be
> > 
> > private slots: sig; private:
> > 
> > this way the items in there are properly reported as private and as
> > slots.
> > 
> > Note: at least in kdelibs, Q_PRIVATE_SLOT is always used in a 'private:'
> > section, not in a 'slots:' or 'private slots:' section.
> > 
> > CCMAIL: david.nolden.kdevelop at art-master.de
> 
> I think this is wrong, because the "private:" you add to the end makes
> everything behind the slot private, so this may cause more problems
> than it causes good. The "Q_PRIVATE_SLOT" just means that the
> implementation is private, doesn't it?

First: Note that e.g. Q_OBJECT does the same. But since it's mostly/always 
used in a class at the top it's fine.

Secondly the ~20 files I checked in lxr.kde.org always had the usage:

private:
    Q_PRIVATE_SLOT(...);

Third, Q_PRIVATE_SLOT means that there is a slot in the dptr that doesn't 
actually have to be a QObject. And since it's in the dptr, it's private, yes.

But since we don't actually cope with these things properly (e.g. the slot is 
reported as child of the base class, not of the dptr), I still think that the 
above is somewhat "correct".

At least I don't see a better way to make sure that the item in there is a 
private slot... I might use private Q_SLOTS: or similar if you prefer?

-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20100412/eb8808b0/attachment.sig>