I switched from qmake to cmake some five+ years ago and while I don't regret it, it takes the 'I' out of all the IDEs I use. No class wizard or real refactoring. Creating a new class or worse library or project takes a lot of blind text editing. This could only be fixed by a full fledged QBS I guess.
2016-09-21 9:08 GMT+02:00 André Somers <an...@familiesomers.nl>: > > > Op 20/09/2016 om 22:09 schreef Alejandro Exojo: > >> On Monday 19 September 2016 18:35:43 Etienne Sandré-Chardonnal wrote: >> >>> Yes, but for instance you can't move-pass an object between signals and >>> slots across a queued connection, unless I'm wrong. You have to make your >>> object implicitely shared. This causes lots of copies when passing a >>> std::vector, for instance. >>> >> The Qt style on designing signals, is to use those for indicating that >> something happened, but not passing the something in the signal. For >> example, >> you get a signal that new data is available (e.g. a datagram), but you >> don't >> get the datagram passed as signal argument. >> > You don't? Well, you can certainly get a pointer to it (which is cheap, of > course)... > See QNetworkAccessManager::finished(QNetworkReply *reply); [signal] > > I would say that it is quite normal to signal the finishing of some > operation _and_ directly pass along the results of that operation. If that > is a std::vector, then indeed it would result in copying (so I'd go looking > for a different design there, perhaps use a QVector instead). > > André > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
