On Sun Feb 19 15:30:53, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Phil Thompson <phil at riverbankcomputing.co.uk> wrote: > > > (In fact I don't see why Qt still needs SIGNAL() and SLOT() - maybe > > the speed penalty of the alternative is more an issue at the C++ > > level.) > > Nah. There's boost::signal, which is a full-blown signal/slot implementation > which works totally at compile time and has zero overhead. In fact, there is > technically *nothing* that moc does which cannot be done with C++ and some > advanced tecniques. But Trolltech seems to like the separate compilation > step more than templates.
Indeed, but see these documents for a more complete discussion: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.1/templates.html http://scottcollins.net/articles/a-deeper-look-at-signals-and-slots.html I think one of the motivations for using a preprocessor-based approach is the continued lack of support for certain C++ advanced techniques with some compilers. Nonetheless, the first document aims to provide other justifications for using moc. > > So, what so you think? Is dropping them to much of a cultural change? > > (Of course they could also be made optional.) > > I'm fine with dropping them as long as they're optional. I also think it's fine to make them optional. Some people might appreciate the explicit nature of SIGNAL and SLOT in their code. I imagine it's still possible to distinguish between signals and slots with this method, and continue to allow signals to be connected to signals without ambiguity. David _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list PyKDE@mats.imk.fraunhofer.de http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde
