198 + virtual ~IPCSemaphore();
Prefer a non-virtual, noexcept destructor
~~~~
549 + client->handler->handle_event(ev);
If "ev" were given the more meaningful name the sheer repetitiveness would be even more apparent:
client->handler->handle_event(event);
You can see it here too:
948 + event_sink->handle_event(any_event);
s/handle_event/handle/ would be an improvement.
98 + std::weak_ptr<Surface> focus_surface;
What is the purpose of this? The name isn't clear, and the usage is entirely at member function scope (so why use a member variable).
« Back to merge proposal
198 + virtual ~IPCSemaphore();
Prefer a non-virtual, noexcept destructor
~~~~
549 + client- >handler- >handle_ event(ev) ;
If "ev" were given the more meaningful name the sheer repetitiveness would be even more apparent:
client- >handler- >handle_ event(event) ;
You can see it here too:
948 + event_sink- >handle_ event(any_ event);
s/handle_ event/handle/ would be an improvement.
~~~~
98 + std::weak_ ptr<Surface> focus_surface;
What is the purpose of this? The name isn't clear, and the usage is entirely at member function scope (so why use a member variable).