On Saturday 07 November 2009 00:19:06 Chris Burel wrote: > 2009/11/6 Ian Monroe : > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Chris Burel wrote: > >>> There are some use cases, especially in QtDBus, where > >>> you need the 'const' version of a method. Depending on whether the > >>> method is const or not the returned value differs. > >> > >> Really? The only thing that looks different is the call to detach(). > >> And if you really want the const data, couldn't you use constData? > >> inline char *QByteArray::data() > >> { detach(); return d->data; } > >> inline const char *QByteArray::data() const > >> { return d->data; } > >> inline const char *QByteArray::constData() const > >> { return d->data; } > > > > Arno was saying that this distinction was needed for methods in > > QtDbus, not that it was required for QByteArray. > > > > Ian > > Ah, ok, that makes a lot more sense. How does the ambiguous method > resolution work for those cases? And can you guys point me to some > specific examples so that I can make test cases? QtRuby and Qyoto still default to the non-const version and don't have a way to use the const one. The lisp bindings now have a public field that can be set and depending on the value you can call the const or non-const method. Tobias Rautenkranz is the developer of these bindings, he probably has more information on that. -- Arno Rehn arno@arnorehn.de _______________________________________________ Kde-bindings mailing list Kde-bindings@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings