On 28/02/2020 13.37, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > 28.02.2020, 21:34, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: >> On Friday, 28 February 2020 07:28:34 PST Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> If we had to do it over again, it might make sense to follow Python and >>> make signals *objects* instead of *methods*. Then the code would look like: >>> >>> this->emptied.emit(...); >> >> Binary compatibility issue: if it's a member of the class, it can't be added >> or removed without changing the class's size and layout, so it would tie our >> hands for future improvements. >> >> You'd see instead: >> >> this->emptied().emit(...); >> connect(foo, foo->emptied(), ...); > > I think it could be a static member as well - there is no real reason for > such member > to be per-instance in the first place.
If it was static, you'd have to pass the instance to `emit(...)`. Otherwise you don't know what instance sent the signal. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development