From: Interest [mailto:interest-bounces+scott=towel42....@qt-project.org] On
Behalf Of Bob Hood
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3:42 PM
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Are slots even needed these days?
On 3/16/2016 3:37 PM, André Pönitz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 02:31:33PM +0000, Gian Maxera wrote:
I can connect to Foo::bar either way. If I don't intend to ever use
the old-style connect syntax, is there a reason to have "public
slots:" anymore?
One reason that for me it’s fundamental: Readability of your code !!!
It doesn't make the code more readable then a comment
// This is a slot !!!
void foo();
I would argument that it does when you have legions of people out there already
conditioned to this:
...
public slots:
void bar();
void foo();
...
instead of:
...
// This is a slot!!!
void foo();
...
// Oh, hey, this is a slot too!!!
void bar();
...
As a Qt developer, I find the former more elegant and self-documenting.
I find them both pretty bad ☹ … I have spent too much time, looking at other
people’s code trying to figure out “why” it wont connect, only to realize
someone had snuck in a “private:” second so moc didn’t generate the slot
information.
I prefer “slotFoo” and “slotBar” as well as “sigFoo” and “sigBar”
It really lets the methods stand out as slots and signals.. It also means,
don’t think “sender()” can ever valid if you are not in a “slotXYZ” function.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
