-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 748
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fixing qtmoc not handling pointer to object in QT signal properly #1147
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…e callback is returning the value of the pointer instead of the pointer
StarAurryon seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account. You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it. |
f061020
to
e8d9849
Compare
Hey, #1147 is for me only a quick fix. I don't believe using math to generate random number is the best approach. Regarding the CLA: this seems very weird to me to accept such thing. I am publishing my code also with LGPLv3 in my repo. I don't see why I should grant you the right to sub-licence my work outside of LGPLv3 as you wish. I truly understand that my patch are evident and there are no real copyright on this. But by principle I can't sign this. Aurryon |
No problem, I respect that. However, I looked into this and the effect of 959859c can also be archieved by saddling the horse the other way around and simplifying some of the code. |
I merged it here: https://github.com/bluszcz/cutego/tree/develop |
The callback is returning the value of the pointer instead of the pointer.
In the change function definition if the value is an Object, we are transmitting the address of the object and if it is a pointer, we are transmitting directly the pointer.
However in the callback function, we do not make such distinction resulting in casting the value of the initial pointer to a pointer and using it for the function call instead of the initial pointer.
Happy to discuss if my code is not a good fit ^^.
Best regards,
Aurryon