On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 08:00:43PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> OK to apply?
Can't comment much on th ui as I haven't tried it out.
However, I have some style comments/questions.
@@ -173,6 +174,10 @@ QPrefsDialog::QPrefsDialog(QPrefs * form
connect(convertersModule->converterRemovePB, SIGNAL(clicked()),
this, SLOT(remove_converter()));
Why do we use the free function here and not QObject::connect, i.e.
connect(convertersModule->converterRemovePB, SIGNAL(clicked()),
SLOT(remove_converter()));
[Note the 'missing' third parameter].
Apart from that I'd probably even like to see an ASSERT here:
BOOST_ASSERT(connect(convertersModule->converterRemovePB,
SIGNAL(clicked()), SLOT(remove_converter())));
or to make this digestible again:
#define CONNECT(sender, signal, slot) \
BOOST_ASSERT(connect(sender, SIGNAL(signal), SLOT(slot)))
...
CONNECT(convertersModule->converterRemovePB, clicked(),
remove_converter());
In
+ connect(convertersModule->converterToCO, SIGNAL(activated(const
QString&)), this, SLOT(converter_changed()));
LyXStyle would be 'QString const &'.
I know that early MOC had a problem with that, but as 3.3.3's moc
definitely understands 'LyX style' I'd assume that 3.0.4's does as well.
Converters::const_iterator cend = form_->converters().end();
for (; ccit != cend; ++ccit) {
- string const name(ccit->From->prettyname() + " -> " +
- ccit->To->prettyname());
+ std::string const name(ccit->From->prettyname() + " ->
"
+ + ccit->To->prettyname());
LyX code uses
+ std::string const name = ccit->From->prettyname() + "
-> "
+ + ccit->To->prettyname();
There are 'good' reasons to use either form, but for uniformity's sake
use the latter. Less pitfalls at least.
Andre'
