On 14/04/2020 05.28, Lars Knoll wrote:
I believe there is mostly a consensus here to find a way to get rid
of those macros. But many of our users do seem to like the ‘emit’
keyword as an annotation to a signal emission, and it is being used
extensively in existing code bases.
You know what would solve this? The ability to define a *reflection*
operator (with proper name scoping) that could apply to statements
and/or access protection specifiers.
class MyObject
{
Qt::Q_OBJECT;
public Qt::slots:
...slots here...
};
MyObject::foo()
{
Qt::emit this->bar();
using namespace Qt;
emit this->bar();
none->emit(...); // *not* the Qt::emit operator
}
If we played this right, maybe we could even reimplement MOC using
reflection? (Stuff like Q_PROPERTY however might be hard, depending on
if these operators are allowed to take a *space* delimited list of
arguments rather than comma delimited.)
--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
