[Development] Container refactor update

[Olivier Goffart]

On Tuesday 19 June 2012 10:22:02 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 19.06.2012 10:00, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.51.32, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >> On 19.06.2012 09:11, Rene Jensen wrote:
> >>> Is this crazy talk? I would imagine that given a set of containers like
> >>> ... hmm ... QSmartList, QSmartMap, QSmartHash inheriting from QObject
> >>> (yes, I know ... moc and templates bla bla - I could live with fixed
> >>> key/value-types if that's what it takes - java did before going
> >>> parametric),
> >> 
> >> Maybe there's a time moc embeds clang and can 'understand' template code.
> > 
> > Moc can understand template code just fine for the output it produces. The
> > problem is that the meta object format does not allow for signals and
> > slots
> > containing template parameters in their signature.
> 
> But moc could not produce code like this, so I would say it is not "just
> fine":

moc needs small adaptations, that's true. But here your example involve 
specialisation of template, which i think is another level.



What would be possible with some addapation is

template<typename T> class A : public QObject { Q_OBJECT
   signal: void someSignal(T);
};
///

Then moc should basically be adjusted to generate what it generates now, but 
adding  template <typename T> in front of everything, and some other small 
adjustemnt


template <typename T> QMetaObject A<T>::staticMetaObject = { ... };

template <typename T> void A<T>::someSignal() { 
  QMetaObject::activate(this, staticMetaObject, 0);  }

template <typename T> void A<T>::qt_metacall(...) {
 ...
 case 0: someSignal(*reinterpret_cast<T*>(*args[1]))
}



Not very complicated, but the other point is that then one should include the 
moc everywhere.  
And is it really worth it?