On Friday 04 December 2015 00:27:09 Olivier Goffart wrote: > I don't think it will break too many applications because anyone who was > relying on the order of instentiation for that has just its application > working out of pure luck. (And i'm pretty sure that your proposal is always > the intended behaviour)
Note that for widgets, the order is not pure luck. The order of children of a QWidget implies the tabbing order. Therefore, it is usually well-defined. I don't mind changing the order, as long as there's a consensus in the mailing list. If we do decide to change the order, I have a follow-up question: do we change it only in connectSlotsByName, or do we change QObject::findChildren to reflect the new order? Right now, connectSlotsByName simply uses findChildren's order. If we decide to change the order in one but not the order, I'd like to hear a compelling reason why it's ok for them be different. > Other possibilities may include: > - Connect signals of both objects. (Probably not a good idea since it does > make it even more confusing) Agreed that this is not a good idea. Let's discard it. > - Throw a warning if there are two objects with the same name. This is orthogonal. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
