On Wednesday 25 May 2011 01:35:28 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 25 de May de 2011 02:45:01 BRM wrote: > > Q_PRIVATE_SIGNAL > > > > Q_PROTECTED_SIGNAL > > All signals are protected today. I already said it might change in Qt 5 so > we can use C++0x-based connect statements.
Would be nice add the possibility to connect Qt signals to C++0x lambdas, C++ functors, C function pointers whatever, in the sense of "Anything can be used as slot", implementing should be a pain but the results would be awesome. > > Q_PROTECTED_SLOT > > - probably just an easier way to write "protected Q_SLOTS" now that I > > think about it more. It's probably more readability/clarity than > > anything else. > > "protected slots" is a lot more readable to me than "Q_PROTECTED_SLOT". > > > FYI - I typically only use the Q_SLOTS/Q_SIGNALS macros myself, namely as > > I don't want the underlying interface to change if say Boost Signal/Slot > > mechanism was used instead of Qt Signal/Slot - e.g. I always want to use > > the Qt mechanism. > > That's a good procedure, Qt public headers themselves are like that. > > But not the private headers and those used in applications only. -- Hugo Parente Lima INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
