From kde-core-devel  Tue May 29 13:36:04 2001
From: Michael Matz <matz () kde ! org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:36:04 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: exporting symbols (was Re: The goodness of goodness)
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=99114372519108

Hi,

On Tue, 29 May 2001, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> > I wanted to originally base it on dcopidl to accept something like this
> > syntax:
> > class KDE_PRIVATE MyClass:public BaseClass,private PClass {
> > to make all symbols resulting from class MyClass non-public;
> >
>
> Shouldn't that rather be the other way round:
>  class K_EXPORT MyClass ... {}
> ?

Bah.  Details, details, how boring.  It's just the flipping of a bool ;-)
But then the best approach would be:
class K_EXPORT A {
int m1();
int m2();
K_PRIVATE void m3();
};

So to denotate a principal visible class, with only few methods being
non-public.  (Thinking of it, both K_EXPORT and K_PRIVATE are needed
anyway, because otherwise methods wouldn't be able to override the class
setting).  I can see the value in defaulting to non-visibility though
(although it's the optimistic approach, whereas normally I'm pessimistic),
so this tool would default to non-visibility (perhaps influenced by
command line options, or file global K_START_* thingies).


Ciao,
Michael.