[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Comparing KFileItems
From:       Frank Reininghaus <frank78ac () googlemail ! com>
Date:       2012-10-26 8:16:50
Message-ID: CAFoZWWhR=zK=EN5SVoYH+8Vn047XP2Fg=hxT3eK35tZnBVdsDA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]