Does anyone have an opinion on this? It was once discussed before on qt-interest[1]
[1] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2010-August/026565.html Kishore On Jul 20, 2011 5:42 PM, "Kishore Jonnalagadda" < [email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2011 5:38 PM, "Kishore Jonnalagadda" < > [email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have been using QAIM in the last few months and one inconsistency I find > is in the headerData() API. I would like to see the api being modified from >> >> virtual QVariant headerData ( int section, Qt::Orientation orientation, > int role = Qt::DisplayRole ) const >> >> to >> >> virtual QVariant headerData ( const QModelIndex & parent, int section, > Qt::Orientation orientation, int role = Qt::DisplayRole ) const >> >> just as it is for columnCount() and other API. In my use case, I am using > QAIM as an aggregating model and hence it is very much possible that the > models being aggregated have different header data. > > Also this change can be made source compatible by making index the last > parameter with a default invalid (root) index. >> Kishore
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
