Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| > | Like so.
| > I see that I missed quite a few emit's.
|
| What? You commit a patch without checking that it compiles?
|
| > I'll fix that promptly.
|
| You never question whether yours changes are good or not, are you? I
| am not saying that this change is bad, FWIW I didn't know that the
| emit keyword was useless compiler wise, but it is useful to indicate
| that this function you are calling is a Qt signal. Without it, a
| casual developer will probably be mis leaded by the fact these methods
| do not have an implementation, I know I will. So some comments are in
| order.
I wonder... is this quite true? Do we actully emit qt signals
ourselfs? Or only signals that we have declared/defined in a signals:
section in a class?
I think both cases are used. That is we do emit signals inherited from
Qt signal and also home grown signal, although not a lot of the latter.
If the latter then the "implementation" will be found.
No, only the definition. There is no implementation for signals.
Abdel.
