Hi David, [1] I don’t think QUuid is suitable for subclassing. I see you’ll need something like a bit field. There is a class in Qt but it does not support (more...)

Hi Atul. You’re right! We don’t need the private structs here. I removed them all. As per out previous discussion the inline declarations should better be removed, right? I tried to (more...)

... Peter Dimov wrote: Hi David, [1]. If you feel that QUuid won’t do, then stick to your UInt128. Later we can think about generalizing the concept into a generic class for ints (more...)

Hi David, Thanks for your feedback about Source Talk. It’s very important that people say what they don’t like so that we’ll know what and how to improve. Could you please (more...)

Hi David, [1]. If you feel that QUuid won’t do, then stick to your UInt128. Later we can think about generalizing the concept into a generic class for ints of random (more...)

I can promise that all that stuff you can see in my last message, was not there when I sent it... I haven't been very comfortable with source talk since (more...)

Hi Peter, thanks for you answers! I have a few more questions to ask you: 1.- About UUID: + UInt128 id; //!QUuid readUuid(); and void writeUuid (const QUuid &);. I've been reading the QUuid class (more...)

Dear all What I mean is this Private is just wrapping a QList... and as Private is a struct, is there any need for this struct? class BList : public BItem { . .. protected:     (more...)

Dear Atul, The chain of responsibility was an interesting idea but IMHO in our specific case it does not contribute to a simpler solution. I like your idea to have the (more...)

Hi David, Thanks for the patch! It’s quite neat :-)! I just applied it on your Kad branch: http://bzr.calitko.org/developers/david/calitko-Kad and the latest revision there is 81. Here are my answers to your notes/questions in (more...)