Re: nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:34:48 +0200 (CEST)
- From: Harri Porten <porten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: nsplugins patch (KDE4)
Hi! On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > why did you switch from a process pointer member to a process value member? Unless some QObject destruction order issue speaks against it I'd say: why not? It saves a heap allocation. Harri. >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
- References:
- nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- From: Sergey Saukh
- Re: nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- From: Oswald Buddenhagen
- nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- Prev by Date: Re: nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- Next by Date: Re: nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- Previous by thread: Re: nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- Next by thread: Re: nsplugins patch (KDE4)
- Index(es):