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'