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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: PATCH: KonqRun::askSave and URLs containing '%'
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2001-08-25 12:57:46
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 25 August 2001 18:06, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
> On Saturday 25 August 2001 11:43, David Faure wrote:
> 
> > I think it's a bit dangerous to have an untested patch (I mean, other than
> > your tests) in a branch that developers don't test, especially if it's not
> > the solution we choose for HEAD. We won't find the other problems in
> > safeArg, so the patch itself isn't "safe" :)
> 
> I agree that one should be careful not to replace a bug with another bug.
> 
> How are other changes for 2.2.1 verified?

They are not really, that's the problem. Usually we backport patches when
they are safe, i.e. obvious. And they are in HEAD too, so if they break something
we might find it from HEAD being broken :)

> I thought about "...", but the lack of type checking is a major drawback. 
> The QStringList solution has some overhead, but at least it is type-safe.

Right. Bad idea then.

> An alternative would be to use overloading to accept different numbers of 
> arguments. After all, there are only 9 possiblities. The overloaded methods 
> would then call a method with a variable number of parameters. 

In that case, instead of overloading, you could use default values, i.e. a single
QString arg( const QString &arg1, const QString &arg2 = QString::null, const QString \
&arg3 = QString::null, [....] ); At least this isn't about a macro, so we can do that \
instead of 9 overloads.

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://perso.mandrakesoft.com/~david/, http://www.konqueror.org/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today


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