> On 20 May 2025, at 12:50, Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> wrote:
>
> On 20/05/2025 10:26, Richard Gustavsen wrote:
>> Would it be more convenient to put the range API directly on QRangeModel
>> instead? E.g:
>> QRangeModel model({1, 2, 3, 4, 5});
>> listView.setModel(&model);
>> model.erase(model.begin());
>> model[0] = x;
>> model.push_back(y);
>
> Yes, this is an important question -- in order to understand the future of
> this API, and thus the name of the class.
It would of course be more convenient. But for that to work (ie. for us to know
what model.begin() is, what operator[] returns, and what ‘y’ can be),
QRangeModel has to be a template class.
And it isn’t, and shouldn’t be, as a subclass of a polymorphic type for the
reasons discussed (weak vtables, and vtable bloat for each specialization).
The only alternative I see is making it a value type that can implicitly
convert to a QAbstractItemModel *. But that’s then not a model itself, and
shouldn’t be called “Model". It would then be a QRangeModelAdapter (although I
wouldn’t want it to implicitly convert to QAbstractItemModel *).
Volker
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
