alex added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> leinir wrote in installation.h:124 > Hmm... i find myself wondering what effect this has on BIC... something tells > me it might not be so great... Specifically, > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B#The_Do.27s_and_Don.27ts > says that you cannot change the signature of existing functions of any > type... However, it feels more like a problem with the documentation - the > idea is that the entries passed into functions aren't changed (and this > really should probably be a const reference, but for some reason it isn't, > and again we can't change that for bic-iness), and so really what /should/ > happen is that rather than saying "The entry instance will be updated" and so > on, what it should be doing is say "If the entry is successfully uninstalled, > listening to signalEntryChanged(const KNSCore::EntryInternal &) for an entry > equal to the one you have passed in will allow you to detect the result of > calling the function". > > That's what it's already doing, and how it is used in places which call the > function, so probably makes sense to fix that. > > In the longer term (think KF6), i would also quite like all the functionality > here to end up entirely asynchronous. I told myself yesterday that I am going to have a look at this patch again^^ And you are absolutely right :-) REPOSITORY R304 KNewStuff REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D29123 To: alex, #knewstuff, meven, ngraham, leinir Cc: leinir, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, cblack, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
