On Thursday 25 of February 2016 19:22:55 Milian Wolff wrote: > On Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2016 09:02:11 CET Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On quinta-feira, 25 de fevereiro de 2016 17:33:52 PST Cristian Adam wrote: > > > This might be a burden for some of the Qt developers (Windows ones). > > > > > > But all the Qt users get a modern / flexible moc, see this thread: > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/470ama/qt_moc_myths_debunked/d09c9 > > > 0e > > > > I don't think we need a more flexible moc. What do we want to do that we > > can't do with the current one? > > > > Don't say "template QObjects". That has other reasons for being a bad > > idea, > > currently. > > Can you explain what those reasons are? I'd really love to write a generic > QAbstractTableModel implementation that operates using concepts. Currently > that would require type erasure and thus another set of virtual function > calls... > > I.e. in many projects I end up writing the same boiler plate code to display > a QVector<MyRowType> in a view. As far as I can see most of that could be > abstracted away easily, leaving only slim concepts to the struct: > > struct MyRowType { > QString foo; > int bar; > QVariant data(int column, int role) const > { > if (!role == Qt::DisplayRole) return {} > switch (column) { > case 1: return foo; > case 2: return bar; > } > return {}; > } > }; > > this could easily be extended to other methods, such as setData, headerData, > etc. pp. In the end, one would only need to implement a trivial minimal API > at the place where the data is actually stored. And no, I do _not_ consider > the current QAIM interface trivial to implement, not even for "simple" > lists! > > If we'd have templates QObjects, the above could easily be written. I bet > there are other valid use-cases. > > Cheers
Hi, When first time I heard about templated QObject, QAIM was my first thought :-) The thought evolved over last months and now I think that QAIM should not be QObject at all, it is just an unnecessary cost. The main problems of templated QObject are captured more or less in this thread: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2013-March/010288.html Personally I still think it would be a fancy feature, a bit dangerous to implement maybe even dangerous to use, but really cool :-D Cheers, Jędrek _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
