On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 00:18, Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilshei...@qt.io> wrote: > With the current design, notational convenience doesn’t work either: > > auto text = qAction->text; > text.left(10); // booh > > ‘text’ is not a QString, but a QAction::_qt_property_api_text object, with > broken... everythings. > > > And if people can’t use auto, then you can’t use standard ranged-for to > iterate over container type properties without spelling everyhing out. That’s > ... not convenient, I suppose. And that problem persists, even if we expose a > e.g QProperty<QStringList> reference through a public property member.
Couldn't we add operator-> and begin/end to the property type? > The current implementation also adds, in case of us not being able to use > no_unique_address, a byte or even a pointer to each class in a class > hierarchy, bloating classes down in the inheritance tree. Plus the BC > challenge that might come with in the long run. > So, this is not only a problem of UB. There is well defined behavior that > seems to get in the way. Ack. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
