On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 06:49:17PM +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > Why can't Qt signals and slots replace Boost.Signals? IMHO Qt signals > are better than Boost signals: they can be queued, introspected, can > ignore parameters, etc (see > http://web.archive.org/web/20070703100120/http://scottcollins.net/articles/a-deeper-look-at-signals-and-slots.html > )
But they are not typechecked at compile time. >From my experience (I use Qt on a daily basis in my professional work) that has cost me more than what is gained from the advantages you mention. The real moc benefit lies in the introspected members and properties that it provides. Especially in combination with an interface designer this is a golden combination. I'd say : requiring Qt-moc currently makes no sense for witty but as soon as the developers start thinking about a interface designer for it, then it becomes valuable. cu bart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
