On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 16:20:33 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Sunday, 13 October 2013 at 12:39:55 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
[…]
Unfortunately the wrapping is based on QtJambi, which is now
dead, but anyway it's easy with hindsight isn't it.
Is anyone else interested and can anyone help me with
polishing it? […]
I'm very interested in having solid Qt bindings available, and
I worked on QtD a while back.
One thing I've been wondering about is whether keeping the
QtJambi-based generator makes sense or if it would be easier
start anew from some of the more active binding projects…
David
I think QtJambi solved a lot of problems that you get when
binding Java to C++, but I'm not so sure about how it helps with
D. The rich XML specification files must have very helpful, and
the handling of how Qt automatically deletes child objects when
reqd must have been useful.
Having used Qt extensively with python I know that performance is
not a huge issue so clarity of the binding is more important. As
a D newbie there's some complicated coding going on in qtd that
is hard to grok and few tests.
However I'm pretty sure that starting over would take a lot
longer than finishing what's there now, tempting though the idea
is:-)
My current feeling is that what is needed is plenty of tests
around memory handling, array handling, signals and slots, and
the more unusual method calls. Get rid of any remaining code that
does not easily run in a croos-platform manner.
