On 17 March 2016 at 01:03, charleyb123 . <charleyb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo > <giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> wrote: >> >> Il 16/03/2016 17:24, charleyb123 . ha scritto: >>> >>> Current slot implementation bridges runtime-reflection capabilities >>> (provided by QMetaObject), and provides the thread-safe event queue that >>> bridges "slot-execution" to occur on the "target-thread" for which the >>> "target-QObject" has "affinity". Lambdas alone cannot do this -- some >>> kid of "event-queue" would be required that is "thread-aware" (yes, >>> could be provided through a library of some kind, that happens to be >>> what Qt is doing). >> >> >> This thread wasn't talking about lambdas, rather about the "old" connect >> syntax (SIGNAL/SLOT based) vs the "new" one (PMF based). >> >> Anyhow, since you brought lambdas into discussion, you can pass an >> affinity object for them as well: >> >>> https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qobject.html#connect-5 >> >> > > Ah, thanks: I misunderstood the thread topic (sorry). ;-) > > Agree that I don't have a use case for the "old" connect syntax anymore > (fine with me to deprecate it). I prefer catching errors at compile-time > with the new syntax. > > I've "overheard" some discussions in other circles about ditching all of > signal/slot in favor of lambdas, and apologies for dragging that into the > discussion. It's something I've been thinking about a lot ... ;-)
There are two things that the new syntax doesn't support: (i) QML connections, and (ii) default parameters. I haven't used (ii) myself, but I definitely use (i). See http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/signalsandslots-syntaxes.html for details. Regards, Sze-Howe _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
