> On 21 May 2025, at 08:47, Volker Hilsheimer via Development
> <development@qt-project.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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
Change at https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/647408 needs a +2.
Volker
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
