[Interest] A suggestion about replacing signals, actions and slots

[Dan White]

Now read this, please :

http://www.qtcentre.org/threads/51888-using-function-pointers-and-callback-functions


“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oleg Yarigin" <dralife at yandex.ru>
To: interest at qt-project.org
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:35:33 AM
Subject: [Interest] A suggestion about replacing signals, actions and slots

Hello,

I read http://byuu.org/articles/qt and got a question, why Qt uses slots and signals? That stuff can be safe replaced with function pointers. I am sure, it can give some advantages.

For instance, for now we need to use something like this to connect callbacks (actions):

	connect( <a>, <a`s action>, <b>, <b`s slot> );

then we use moc, Q_OBJECT macro and special "slots:" class section.

I hope, this stuff can be better (with a way below we do not need to use moc, qmake and have an overhead in Qt library):

  Action holder:
  
	class QWidget
	{
	public:
		void QObject::* slotFoo ( int, int, void* );
		void QObject::* eventClose ( QCloseInfo* );
	}

	QWidget::WidgetNeedsToCallAMethod()
	{
		if( slotA ) slotFoo( 12, 15 );
	}


  Slot holder:

	class OurClass : public QMainWindow
	{
		void createAction()
		{
			QAction a();
			a.slotA = eventClose(); //Instead of connect() function
		}

	public:
		void eventClose ( int a, int b ){ ... }	
	}

What do you think about it? If you are agree, I will create a new brunch in Qt repo for making these changes.

------

Oleg.
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest