2017-01-20 3:01 GMT+01:00 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: > Because it's a template, so the template when Func = char* matches better than > the overload with const char*. I assume that using nullptr without casting > also breaks, correct?
Correct. > From what you explained, this will not affect the case when the pointer is a > const char *, so neither > > const char *func = "deleteLater"; > QMetaObject::invokeMethod(&obj, func); > > nor > > const char *func = nullptr; > QMetaObject::invokeMethod(&obj, func); > > will stop compiling. So if you add an overload taking a non-const char* (and > its unit test), we also catch the even more dubious code: > > char func[] = "deleteLater"; > QMetaObject::invokeMethod(&obj, func); > > The only case that would break would be for a constant null pointer literal, > which in my opinion is acceptable, since it should never happen in real code. As an alternative to adding "char *" overload, it seems that replacing "std::is_same<const char *,Func>" by "std::is_same<char *, Func>" in the "QtPrivate::QEnableIf" part of the template solves the issue for char * and const char *. Also I have checked QTimer and QTimer::singleShot(0, &obj, (char *)0); doesn't compile because the "wrong" overload is chosen. Removing the const in the std::is_same should also fix this. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
