Tony Van Eerd schreef op 27-2-2014 21:06: > Sorry, there is probably a KDE email list or something that I should post > this to, but I know it is very closely related to Qt: > > On http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B > there is: > > You cannot... > > - For existing functions of any type: > - add an overload (BC, but not SC: makes &func ambiguous), adding > overloads to already overloaded functions is ok (any use of &func already > needed a cast). To me, it doesn't sound reasonable to expect an unqualified &func to stay source compatible. If you want your code to be source compatible with future vesions and you use function pointers, I'd suggest to always use the longer, ugly cast version. I don't think it is unreasonable that in the future overloads are introduced for existing functions, especially for non-slots.
BC is IMHO a big enough constraint. Lets not bind our hands even further... André _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
