I was looking at patch
0001-EDA_BASE_FRAME-fix-a-Woverloaded-virtual-warning.patch and was
wondering if anyone knows why we are providing our own
EDA_BASE_FRAME::IsActive() instead of using wxFrame::IsActive()? Is
wxFrame::IsActive() broken in some way that we cannot use it to
determine if the wxFrame is active? It appears to me that
EDA_BASE_FRAME::IsActive() and it's related member variable
m_FrameIsActive are unnecessary since I cannot file them used anywhere
in KiCad other than inside an wxActivateEvent() handler which makes them
redundant. Just use wxActiveateEvent::GetActive() instead of keeping a
copy of the active state laying around. Can anyone shed some light on
why this is written this way? I would rather get rid of the unnecessary
code rather than apply this patch.
On 1/21/2015 1:08 PM, Fat-Zer wrote:
>> Looks outdated.
> Nope, you can build the current kicad source with -Woverloaded-virtual either with gcc or clang and see a bunch of those warnings...
>
I was looking at patch BASE_FRAME- fix-a-Woverload ed-virtual- warning. patch and was FRAME:: IsActive( ) instead of using wxFrame: :IsActive( )? Is FRAME:: IsActive( ) and it's related member variable t::GetActive( ) instead of keeping a
0001-EDA_
wondering if anyone knows why we are providing our own
EDA_BASE_
wxFrame::IsActive() broken in some way that we cannot use it to
determine if the wxFrame is active? It appears to me that
EDA_BASE_
m_FrameIsActive are unnecessary since I cannot file them used anywhere
in KiCad other than inside an wxActivateEvent() handler which makes them
redundant. Just use wxActiveateEven
copy of the active state laying around. Can anyone shed some light on
why this is written this way? I would rather get rid of the unnecessary
code rather than apply this patch.
On 1/21/2015 1:08 PM, Fat-Zer wrote: virtual either with gcc or clang and see a bunch of those warnings...
>> Looks outdated.
> Nope, you can build the current kicad source with -Woverloaded-
>