On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:58 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] >>[mailto:[email protected]] On >>Behalf Of Knoll Lars (Nokia-MP-Qt/Oslo) > >>>The reason why i don't like those is that it is really exposing a lot of >>>the >>>internals, and that using them is complicated. >>>A better alternative would be to have public API to do the things that we >>>want. That is, something like >>>QObject::addDynamicSignal(...) QObject::addDynamicSlot() ... (and a >>>dynamicslotevent), or whatever that api is used for. >>> >>>Now, if these classes stay private anyway, i don't object. (because >>>reducing >>>code duplication is a good thing) >> >>I would also prefer to keep it private to start with :) >> >>But yes, let's reduce the code duplication and rather have one well tested >>version. > > I believe Lorn just forgot to mention this tiny little detail.... Yes, it's > only going to be a private export.
If this is what I think it is and what it looks like it is, I wouldn't be surprised if it were reimplemented a few times again in various language bindings. (I would be a lot more surprised if it weren't). Having it publicly available might be useful. > > -- > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Qt5-feedback mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback > -- Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively. _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
