On 2016-02-15 15:23, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> So I do not support expanding the scope of QtGamepad in the way you >> propose, as I think if it belongs anywhere it is in a generic input API >> (or you can always still just wrap SDL's input module pretty easily). > > I might be more inclined to agree if there was already a QJoystick or > some such. As is, I think, at best, you're putting the cart before the > horse.
Let me put that differently. By artificially constraining QGamePad, you are forcing people with needs that don't exactly conform to the completely arbitrary limitations you have chosen to impose to *recreate functionality that you are already using*. That's just... inconsiderate. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
