2009/5/29 Ivan Čukić <ivan.cu...@gmail.com>: > This starts to look like something. But I would propose an addition. > 1 - that add returns a reference to the Animation object so that the following > is possible: > b.add(animator.blur(...)) > .add(animator.bounce(...)) > or with << operator (like QList...) > b << animator.blur(...) > << animator.bounce(...) Either is possible.
> 2 - to have static 'constructors' Animation::series(item) and > Animation::parallel(item), or, even better, just to have the Animation::Type > enum (Parallel, Serial) passed to the constructor > Animation a(item, Animation::Parallel) Sure, this works too. > A bit modified Aaron's way > > Animation b(item2, Animation::Parallel); > b << animator.blur(0.8) > << animator.bounce(4); > Animation a(item); > a << animator.fadeIn() > << b > << animator.pause(10); > << animator.fadeOut(); > a.run(250); > > Or my way: > > Animation b(item2, Animation::Parallel); > b << animator.blur(0.8) > << animator.bounce(4); > Animation a(item); > a << animator.fadeIn() > << ( > Animation(item2, Animation::Parallel) > << animator.blur(0.8) > << animator.bounce(4); > ) > << animator.pause(10); > << animator.fadeOut(); > a.run(250); Well, all you're doing here is instead of dumping it in b and using b later, you're explicitly defining it inline. This is fine, although if we decide to return references (the . way) instead of using the << operator, would we be able to group stuff in parentheses like you did? Anyway, like Aaron says, this is 2nd priority so we have time to decide. -- ~ mali (http://constant.inople.net/) _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel