On Monday 10 October 2005 14:15, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> hmm, how about that:
>  class QAbstractProcess : public QIODevice;
>  class QProcess : public QAbstractProcess;
>  class KExtProcess : public QAbstractProcess;
>
> i didn't really think it through; it's just an idea. i guess that would
> be qt5 anyway.

Sounds like overkill. If I can make [QK]ExtProcess binary compatible with the 
'normal' classes it would be nice, but it's not a goal as it's almost 
certainly not even possible. The goal is source compatibility, and possibly 
subclassing QIODevice, but subclassing anything below the IO device seems 
like a lot of work with little benefit to me.

> > If there's anything interesting or revolutionary, please do inform me.
> > Also I would like to receive a heads-up when you think the K4Process
> > API starts stabilizing,
>
> sure

Thanks!

-- 
Martijn