On 27/02/2020 17.01, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Thursday, 27 February 2020 21:43:33 CET Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> On 27/02/2020 13.57, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> On Monday, 24 February 2020 03:30:25 PST André Somers wrote: >>>> You seem to assume everyone used QtCreator as their IDE of choice. That >>>> is >>>> not a reasonable assumption I think. >>> >>> It is a reasonable feature request for ALL IDEs to understand what a Qt >>> signal is. >> >> Really? You include github/gitlab/phabricator in that list? Vim? Notepad++? > > I would be surprised if any of those didn't.
Really? Because only one of those *might* include code parsing abilities. We aren't talking about recognizing `emit`. We're talking about being able to inspect the following code: if (...) { this->update(); this->changed(); } ...and recognizing that the former is a "regular" method call, while the latter is a signal emission. Which requires a code model that correctly identifies the corresponding header *and* understands MOC's meta-language. TTBOMK, *no* IDE's (or perhaps only QtC) currently do the latter. Conversely, `emit` works *even in non-IDE's*; notepad, cat, grep, (github), etc.... Claiming that "the IDE can do just as good a job marking signals as using `emit`" is just plain wrong, or at least, missing the point. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development