On Monday, 24 February 2020 15:03:41 CET Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 15:52, Ville Voutilainen > > <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 14:42, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: > > > But we could convey the information that this is a signal you’re calling > > > *reliably* through other means. This implies that the keyword is not > > > required.> > > Was the keyword ever required? Seems like it's just a taste difference > > from a > > > > qEmit(my_signal()); > > > > to write > > > > emit my_signal(); > > > > The first one can be namespaced, and thus its name lookup controlled. > > It also never clashes with a member name. > > Its worse aesthetics aside, if we'd had that since the beginning, we > > wouldn't be talking about the current clashes > > with std::osyncstream. > > Hah, except it of course doesn't work with my_signal that returns void.
Yeah you would need something like qEmit(&my_signal, Args..) or without & using a macro. Or.. qEmit(std::bind(&my_signal, Args...)); 'Allan _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
