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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: RFC: KConfig changes for 3.0
From:       Charles Samuels <charles () kde ! org>
Date:       2001-07-25 18:15:25
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 25 July 2001 11:07 am, David Faure wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:59:44AM -0700, Charles Samuels wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 July 2001 10:28 am, David Faure wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 07:40:18AM -0700, Charles Samuels wrote:
> > > > In addition to Rob's comments, we should eliminate the obvious lack
> > > > of OO safety in KConfig and always explicitly set a group when
> > > > accessing a key.
> > > >
> > > > My personal favorite way is a group(QString) function that returns a
> > > > temporary KConfigGroup.
> > > >
> > > > In other words
> > > >
> > > > config->group("Some Group Name")->readEntry("Some Key");
> > >
> > > This is an excellent, excellent idea.
> > > And with a KConfigGroup * you could cache the value of
> > > config->group("Some Group Name") in case you're reading multiple keys
> > > from it.
> > > And it's not hard to keep source compat, with the readEntry and
> > > setGroup still available in KConfigBase.
> > > And it's not hard to implement either :)
> > >
> > > Yes yes yes, this gets a 100000% vote from me :)
> >
> > So, is that a yes, or a no?
>
> A yes ! There are 3 yes in the line above and you need one more ? :)
Ok, four now.  Gotcha :)

>
> > Answers like "This is an excellent, excellent idea" and  "yes yes yes,
> > this gets a 100000% vote from me" are a bit ambiguous, n'est pas?
>
> I thought I couldn't be more explicit !
> I even pointed out many good things about this idea.
But you only wrote "Yes" thrice!  Surely you can't expect me to be certain 
until I get the fourth?

>
> Damn, this will teach me for being enthousiast about something.
> I'm all happy and you read irony in my words ? :{

We all still love you David.  Right, everyone? :)

>
> So... where's the patch ? :)
We havn't branched yet.  And anyway, you showed more enthusiasm than I did. :)

-Charlse

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