Le Monday 25 April 2011, Michael Pyne a écrit :
> On Sunday, April 24, 2011 16:42:22 Christoph Feck wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 April 2011 15:04:38 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > Olivier, these are your moc changes.
> > 
> > Given that Q_PRIVATE_SLOT is a private definition, shouldn't we rather
> > fix the code in KDE?
> 
> Perhaps, but let's let the developers making the changes verify that this
> was an intended side effect of the change. ;)

Exactly, we rather be aware of breakage, so we can try not to break anything.

In this case, we have to see if we can fix it in Qt. I do not see any solution 
on top of my head. We have to discuss if it is ok to break this use case if 
there is no solution.
But it is true that this is use of private API, over which we do not support 
compatibility, so i think we may keep this change in Qt, and the change can be 
fixed in KDE