On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:15:08PM +0300, Guy Rutenberg wrote: > Hi, > > On 18 July 2013 02:17, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > > > > The usual way is that you send patches to the list and if there is agreement > > they are fine someone commits for you. > > > I trying to describe my proposed changes before actually writing them, > as that would take much longer. If there is an agreement on the kind > of changes needed, aproving the patches is easier and it's less likely > that I'll work on patches which will not be accepted. > > > I also suggest that you CC Enrico (doing it right now), his is mastering > > this QProcess area and I'm not sure how much he is around the list nowadays. > > Great, I'll wait for his opinion before starting to actually work on it.
I would ask what is the *real* problem that such rewrite would solve? I agree that an array of arguments is better than a string, but you have to consider that a string is right the format that an user enters, such that you have to anyway parse it to construct a vector. And this is prone to the same kind of errors that you would like to avoid. Then, also consider that the move to QProcess had disabled the possibility of using batch files on Windows and only after some struggling I reintroduced that capability. Also, there's a problem regarding the setting of the environment for a QProcess (see https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-19885), and the current way of dealing with it is a workaround that has proven to work for the last years. So, in essence, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Enrico
