From kde-core-devel  Thu Dec 20 20:15:25 2007
From: Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi () kde ! org>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:15:25 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: signal signatures vs. inheritance (Re: [PATCH] KProcess port of
Message-Id: <20071220201525.GA8674 () ugly ! local>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=119818173911804

On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:14:16PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> i see, you mean this
>
>    meinproc->setOutputChannelMode(KProcess::SeparateChannels);
>
OnlyStdoutChannel, but anyway ...

> To be able to handle the finished signal i have to use QProcess related 
> types in the signal definition like
>
>    connect( meinproc, SIGNAL( finished( int, QProcess::ExitStatus) ),
>             this, SLOT( meinprocExited( int, QProcess::ExitStatus) ) );
>
> or
>
>    connect( meinproc, SIGNAL( finished( int, QProcess::ExitStatus) ),
>             this, SLOT( meinprocExited( int, KProcess::ExitStatus) ) );
>
> both formats works.
>
> If  i use the following
>
>    connect( meinproc, SIGNAL( finished( int, KProcess::ExitStatus) ),
>             this, SLOT( meinprocExited( int, KProcess::ExitStatus) ) );
>
> it compiles but raises a "could not connect" runtime error.
>
i'd call that a misbehavior/bug on qt's side, given that it does not
reflect c++ namespacing rules. both of the first variants working and
the last one failing seems outright weird ...

> Wouldn't it not better to add a  specific signal to KProcess to avoid
> such problems ?
>
do you realize *how* many classes would have to be uglified that way?

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Confusion, chaos, panic - my work here is done.