Hi,
On 21-11-2023 16:31, Laszlo Papp wrote:
Hi,
The tree model examples seem to invent a custom tree item.
Simple:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtwidgets-itemviews-simpletreemodel-example.html
Edit:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtwidgets-itemviews-editabletreemodel-example.html
at
https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/tree/examples/widgets/itemviews/simpletreemodel/treeitem.h?h=6.6
and
https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/tree/examples/widgets/itemviews/editabletreemodel/treeitem.h?h=6.6
---
Long time ago, I based my projects on these examples, inventing
(copying and pasting) these tree items.
I wonder whether these examples could instead propagate the use of:
1. QTreeWidgetItem?
2. QStandardItem?
It seems that e.g. the QTreeWidgetItem is nearly the same as the Tree
Item invented in those examples. So, why reinvent?
Do you think that the tree item still has a good use case to exist in
those examples?
If yes, what is it?
If not, could we start propagating QTreeWidgetItem or QStandardItem in
those examples instead to avoid reinventing?
No, please. I would suggest to instead deprecate these classes, at
minimum the Widgets (QListWidget, QTableWidget and QTreeWidget) and
their *Item classes. These classes lead to horrible code in practice.
Propagating their use in examples is going backwards.
QStandardItemModel is a complete misnomer, it is anything but standard.
Instead, it should be understood as something like QPrototypeItemModel
or something: suitable to use to play around with or whip up a quick
test or something, but not for production code. The standard way of
working should be writing a real model based around your own application
specific data structures.
Cheers,
André
Thank you in advance.
Kind regards,
László
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
