Q_EMIT

[Gilles Caulier-4]

Andi, Marcel,

Why not to use Q_EMIT macro everywhere instead "emit" ?

http://doc.trolltech.com/4.5/qobject.html#Q_EMIT

Gilles
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

Actually emit is defined as an empty macro, so we could also remove it
completely.
It is only there to show that this call is a signal, it is not doing anything
special.

Since this is not used in headers, I don't know if we will get problems
anyway.
Personally, I would hate to write
Q_EMIT signalBlaBla();

In this case, I would rather remove the keyword completely and be consistent
in naming all signals like signalTHENAME()....

This way you always see that it is a signal call.

Andi

On Saturday 24 October 2009 08:50:36 Gilles Caulier wrote:

> Andi, Marcel,
>
> Why not to use Q_EMIT macro everywhere instead "emit" ?
>
> http://doc.trolltech.com/4.5/qobject.html#Q_EMIT
>
> Gilles
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel