On segunda-feira, 3 de outubro de 2016 14:31:06 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Il 03/10/2016 13:18, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> > Because they don't need to be. You can call any function from the
> > debugger,
> > regardless of actual constness of the object.
> >
> > They were designed to be
Il 03/10/2016 13:18, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> Because they don't need to be. You can call any function from the debugger,
> regardless of actual constness of the object.
>
> They were designed to be called from the debugger itself, never by your code.
Come on, that's not a justification
On domingo, 2 de outubro de 2016 20:05:49 MDT Andy wrote:
> Why aren't QObject::dumpObjectTree() and QObject::dumpObjectInfo() const?
> Surely they shouldn't be modifying the state of the object.
Because they don't need to be. You can call any function from the debugger,
regardless of actual
Why aren't QObject::dumpObjectTree() and QObject::dumpObjectInfo() const?
Surely they shouldn't be modifying the state of the object.
I occasionally add them to my own debug dump() methods which are const
(ensures no modification is happening accidentally) and have to work around
this each time.
