[Development] Should QObject::event() be protected or public?

[Jaroslaw Kobus]

> From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development <development at qt-project.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 8:58 PM
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Should QObject::event() be protected or public?
>
> Il 15/03/24 19:22, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development ha scritto:
>> Il 15/03/24 19:17, Jaroslaw Kobus via Development ha scritto:
>>> +1. Typically, the designer of a subclass knows what he is doing. But it
>>>    also happens that users of this class know better how to use it :)
>> I'm not sure what this means.
>>
>> If you override `event()` (public in QObject) as e.g. protected, it's
>> either a mistake in good faith (you thought it was protected all along),
>> but it's never a "I know better". You clearly*don't*  know better, as
>> you don't know C++.
>
> I'm really sorry, I just realized that this can be read in a very
> offensive way: the "you" above was in *no* way directed to Jaroslaw
> Kobus. It was a generic "you" -- as opposed as "I know better", for a
> generic subject "I", not necessarily the writer. I apologize to
> Jaroslaw if this caused a misunderstanding.

Don't worry, Peppe, I didn't take it personally, all is fine :)

To the point: we are talking here about decreasing the visibility of a member function in a subclass.
The virtuality of the method isn't relevant I guess, is it?
I've never used it personally, but the fact that C++ language designers let it compile, even without a warning, makes me wonder that there were some reasons for it.
Just found some reasoning, though not sure how much valid it is:
https://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial/hiding-inherited-functionality/

Probably there are more resources about this topic in the internet.

Regards

Jarek