jwe,
Just checking the last cset I see:
~/wip/Projects_Mine/octave-dev: hlog -p -r -1
changeset: 28577:5c6b4cbd417f
bookmark: @
tag: tip
user: John W. Eaton <jwe@octave.org>
date: Tue Jul 14 01:19:30 2020 -0400
summary: avoid deprecated Qt QString::sprintf function
diff -r 1afdc349b883 -r 5c6b4cbd417f
libgui/qterminal/libqterminal/unix/TerminalView.cpp
--- a/libgui/qterminal/libqterminal/unix/TerminalView.cpp Tue Jul
14 01:09:31 2020 -0400
+++ b/libgui/qterminal/libqterminal/unix/TerminalView.cpp Tue Jul
14 01:19:30 2020 -0400
@@ -927,8 +927,7 @@ void TerminalView::showResizeNotificatio
connect(_resizeTimer, SIGNAL(timeout()), _resizeWidget,
SLOT(hide()));
}
- QString sizeStr;
- sizeStr.sprintf("Size: %d x %d", _columns, _lines);
+ QString sizeStr = QString("Size: %1 x %2").arg(_columns).arg(_lines);
_resizeWidget->setText(sizeStr);
_resizeWidget->move((width()-_resizeWidget->width())/2,
(height()-_resizeWidget->height())/2+20);
In Octave m-files, the convention is a space between the function name
and the parenthesis which starts the input parameter list. Are we
trying to follow that in C++ as well? For example, in the above code,
"_resizeWidget->setText(sizeStr)" there is no space between the member
function name setText and the parenthesis. If this is the convention,
does it also apply to class constructors? Should the code read
"QString(...)" or "QString (...)"?