On 10/4/11 3:03 PM, "ext Gábor Lehel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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. Long term we should consider that, but it's probably better to keep it private in the first version. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
