[Development] Lack of base classes/interfaces? Q*, Q*F
andre at familiesomers.nl
Mon Apr 17 08:10:28 CEST 2017
Op 17/04/2017 om 08:02 schreef Jason H:
> Maybe templates are the way to go. But I just had to change some lines because I was using vectors and Qt was using QList. I'd like to eliminate the need/cost for QList::toVector() and QVector::toList(). If there was a base that provided the basics so that I don't have to worry about it's representation in my code, I want the developer (usually me, but anyone using my functions) to be the one that makes that decision.
Well, I think most people here would agree QList was not the best choice
> You're right I don't know how C++ handles virtuals, but should I care? This is OOP, I want to use OOP. You're telling me that because the language/compiler implements something poorly, that I can't use OOP?
There are many people for who real-world performance means a lot more
that your wish to use "OOP" - for whatever understanding you have of
that concept. Still, I'd like to see your proposal to to consolidate
QRect and QRectF into one hierarchy using that. I don't see that working
out, but perhaps I am missing something. What would the width() method
return, for instance?
>> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:44 PM
>> From: "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
>> To: development at qt-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [Development] Lack of base classes/interfaces? Q*, Q*F
>> Em domingo, 16 de abril de 2017, às 18:25:49 PDT, Jason H escreveu:
>>> I am wondering why all the Q* and Q*F classes (where $1 in [Rect, Point,
>>> etc]) don't use an interface? I recently moved some code from ints to
>>> floats, and I had to change far more code than I should have had to.
>> If you're thinking of a template class and make each of those just an
>> instantiation of the template, it could be done, and yet wouldn't help you a
>> lot. Each instantiation is a distinct type. Your code would need to be
>> It wouldn't be easy for us either, as the algorithms are subtly different. The
>> rectangle and size, for example, store the inclusive bottom-right coordinate,
>> whereas the floating point ones store them exclusive.
>> If you're thinking of base class with inheritance and virtuals, then you have
>> to learn a lot about C++ efficiency. Those classes are too small for virtuals.
>> It would be bad API design and an incredible overhead for little gain. As I
>> mentioned, the classes have actually little in common between one another.
>>> My proposal is to change QRect to QRectI, and make QRect an interface.
>> That's a vague suggestion. Make a concrete proposal, please. Without virtuals,
>> of course.
>>> I'm not fan of MS's Ieverything, but I think base classes/interfaces are
>>> under used in Qt. Why aren't there more of them?
>> You are thinking of classes with virtuals. QRect has no virtuals and shall
>> never have them.
>> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>> Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at qt-project.org
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
More information about the Development