[Development] Lack of base classes/interfaces? Q*, Q*F
alex at vikingsoft.eu
Mon Apr 17 09:30:35 CEST 2017
On Monday 17 April 2017 03:25:49 Jason H wrote:
> 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.
> My proposal is to change QRect to QRectI, and make QRect an interface.
Have you thought this through? What would that interface or base class return
for x()/y()/width(), etc?
Classes like this are normally named "value classes" because you should
consider them like like regular values that the language provides. That is,
like int or float, for example, which is very appropriate for the case that
you bring. Do you really think that there should be a base class for int and
float? Some languages have that, but follow very different design principles.
You should really explain which kind of code did you change, because just
recently I adjusted code from using a key press event to a touch event, and
the point had to change from QPoint to QPointF, and the changes were minimal.
This wasn't explained to me, but I just found it natural. Also:
> In the past, I think I remember some pain points between QList and QVector,
> (or was it QMap, QHash?) which should be QIterable (QIndexable)? Similarly
> all the string types.
Again I don't see which your problem was. All the containers have a very
similar API, and the string types too. The algorithms in the standard library
go to the extent that work with any container (including Qt containers) that
provides some features and don't need a base class.
And you don't need to be a low-level C++ developer that crafts algorithms and
writes containers to end up writing code like this, or to see it valuable.
Some time ago I did a simple proof of concept that used the same code to draw
with QPainter on a QWidget, QQuickPaintedItem and QRasterWindow. I did it when
I found the existence of QRasterWindow, saw the similarity of API, and though
"this could be interesting".
So sorry, you will have to explain more details of what your problem was,
because it's not clear at all (at least to me) what is so problematic. You can
use the same kind of container in a foreach or range for loop. You can use the
same kind of iterator. QList has a lot of convenience API that QVector gained
as well for easing the porting. So what's left?
Viking Software, Qt and C++ developers for hire
More information about the Development