[Development] RFC: Improved Q_ENUM

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 2015-02-18 16:53, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2015 12:16:58 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> I have not tried QSettings yet, but since it works with QVariant it
>>> should 
>>> work.
>>
>> Sure, I'd expect it to work, also :-). What I meant was, does it get
>> written as an integer, or as a string?
> 
> Neither.
> 
> It's written as @Variant(<QDataStream serialisation of the type goes here>) 
> where the QDataStream serialisation includes the type's name. It also only 
> works if you've registered operator<< and operator>> for your type.

  enum foo {bar};
  QSettings().setValue("foo", bar);

Didn't check, but considering I haven't even registered the metatype,
I'm pretty sure this writes "foo=0". However, that goes back to my
previous point; adding Q_ENUM(foo) is not going to change this, because
the value is already converted to numeric when the QVariant is
constructed, when I'm doing it this way.

If I'm doing QVariant::fromValue<foo>(bar), then presumably I already
have my own QDataStreap << and >> operators, and Q_ENUM isn't going to
change that either (at least not without me as a developer being very
aware of that change, which I think is sufficient).

A better question might be if this works:

  Q_ENUM(foo) // assume same 'foo' as above
  QSettings().setValue("foo", QVariant::fromValue<foo>(bar).toString());
  auto v = QSettings().value("foo");
  v.value<foo>(); // does this return foo::bar?

-- 
Matthew