On Sunday 08 May 2011 18:38:34 Daniel Schepler wrote: > Sorry to take so long to respond to this... In theory, you're probably > correct. However, the "signals," "slots" and "emit" definitions are a > fundamental part of Qt programming that have been there at least since I > started working with Qt back in the Qt 3 days. It would be a major change > and break probably 90% or more of Qt-using programs to disable or rename > those definitions.
Yup. the signals, slots and emit words are very common across Qt sourcecode. There is also the Q_SIGNALS, Q_SLOTS , Q_EMIT, Q_FOREACH and other such keywords. > Looking at the headers, I see there is a QT_NO_KEYWORDS option which keeps > only the Q_SIGNALS, etc. versions of the defines. So I guess polkit-qt-1 > could be rewritten to #define QT_NO_KEYWORDS and update the source > accordingly. But I'm not sure how that would impact packages using > polkit-qt-1 (notably including kde4libs). It has happened upstream that it now builds with QT_NO_KEYWORDS, and I'm trying my best to advice people to use the Q_version of the 'keywords'. /Sune -- Man, do you know how may I send to a floppy disk? First of all from Windows you have to unmount the TCP/IP terminale to receive the ISDN device of a Ultra-wide PCI printer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org