Hi David,

2012/10/24 David Faure:
> On Wednesday 24 October 2012 10:47:46 Frank Reininghaus wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I see that I should probably have created a review request to make
>> review easier for you - sorry about that! But I think we're getting
>> closer to the final solution, so I'll just reply to your message with
>> a new patch.
>
> Heh, if you're doing all the work, who am I to complain about the way you send the patch? :-) No problem at all.
>
>> > Or return !operator==(other), inline, for easier maintainance.
>>
>> I haven't implemented the inline part yet. Would you prefer to have
>> the inline method inside the class definition or rather just move the
>> function into the header file and prepend it with 'inline'?
>
> I was thinking the first one, but indeed Qt often does the second one,
> I'm not sure what the difference really is. Either one is fine with me.

in the end, I did not inline the function - before I pushed the
commit, I wondered whether making a non-inline function inline is
guaranteed to be binary compatible. According to Techbase, it's not:

http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C++#The_Do.27s_and_Don.27ts

Best regards,
Frank