> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Pierre-Yves > Siret > Sent: Monday, 6 August 2018 3:34 PM > To: Mitch Curtis <[email protected]> > Cc: Paolo Angelelli <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Development] Programmable delegate selection for QML views > > > One minor problem with this is what we do when none of the delegates > match the data type. #1 seems to cover this (https://codereview.qt- > project.org/#/c/206670/8/src/qml/types/qqmldelegatemodel.cpp > <https://codereview.qt- > project.org/#/c/206670/8/src/qml/types/qqmldelegatemodel.cpp> ) by > requiring that delegate also be implemented if a delegateChooser is > provided. How does #2 account for it? I guess with #2 there should be a way > to provide a "default" delegate, by e.g. leaving all properties (indexValue, > roleValue) unset so that it acts a sort of wildcard? > > > A default delegate looks like the sensible way to go indeed. > But should we REQUIRE one ? Why can't we just not instantiate something > when no fitting delegate is found ? That's what I believe #1 is actually > doing.
It's an interesting question. :D Personally I don't see the point. The behaviour for views has always been that there will always be a delegate available when it is needed. How would "missing" delegates work? I would imagine that would mess up something, somewhere internally in Qt Quick view classes. Or to ask it a different way: why do you have data in your model if it shouldn't be displayed? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
