>
> In addition to "bindings" and "assignment" (possibly including
> single-values or lists-of-values), is there a QML concept of "plus-equals"?
>
> For example:
>
> Item {
> my_set0 : some_val0; // replace value
>
> // ...can I "accumulate" values?
> my_set1 :+ added_val; // Something like this?
> my_set2 +: added_val; // Something like this?
> }
>
> Artem respondeth:
> Not in QML, but I you can implement it in JavaScript.
> You can implement an OnChanged: handler for a property and whenever it is
> changed add new value to some JavaScript list.
> Certainly you'll have to care about when you try adding the same value
> twice as that won't cause OnChange signal.
>
The "OnNNN:" may be sufficient, but I was hoping for something more
elegant.
What I am curious about is why you need such an accumulative property. Why
> can't some addValue() javascript function suite you?
>
I *really* want to stay as "declarative/direct" as possible (not drop to
"imperative-Javascript" unless absolutely necessary, which seems quite
"indirect"). For example, the "OnNNN:" syntax seems a little "indirect"
and "unwieldy" when I merely want to "declare-an-accumulation".
The *concept* is interesting: An item implicitly "grows" its list of
"children" (when the children "declare" their "parent"). I like that. I
want more like that. However, that works because the "one-to-many" is
*implied* (you can say, "That's-my-parent!", and the parent
"takes-ownership"). That won't work for "many-to-many" relationships, or
when you must specify the other-way-around (e.g,
"I-accept/take-that-item"), and that's a really common pattern/problem.
An example use would be the QML-description for the QBS build definition.
I find the "describe-lists-of-files" quite awkward (e.g., "a-little-off").
We *must* be able to declare *partial-sets* of things, with the
understanding that those sets will be *grown/adjusted* later. It seems so
fundamental to me, and I see "go-to-Javascript" as the "goto-last-resort"
only when you have no other choice.
For this, "Make" and shells and pretty much all interpreted languages have
some kind of "+=", and it would-be-nice to have something "LISP-ish" like
"declare-these-as-appended-to-the-existing".
Fundamentally, "assignment/declared-binding" isn't enough, IMHO. I could
even live with something like this:
Item {
nested_set : [nested_set, another_item];
}
....but, that seems like a lot more work than:
Item {
nested_set :+ another_item;
}
...when IMHO the following implies you *lost* all previous items, which
FREQUENTLY is not what you want:
Item {
nested_set : another_item; // oops! lost previous items!
}
Just some thoughts. (Cross-posting to the qbs-list, because there's very
little traffic there, and perhaps I misunderstand the solution to
partial-sets-of-files-that-later-get-resolved.)
--charley
_______________________________________________
Qt-qml mailing list
Qt-qml@qt.nokia.com
http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-qml
