4 ms·
The initial complaint was that it did not have "good support." I think it is fair to say that having to spend a significant amount of effort to work around a la
by chc 4y ago
The initial complaint was that it did not have "good support." I think it is fair to say that having to spend a significant amount of effort to work around a lack of support is not "good support."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LorenDB 4y agoIndeed, that is what I meant. I would like to see Qt allow some sort of language-abstracted moc so I can just install Qt and a set of Qt bindings and then use them. Just because I can work around the moc doesn't mean that I can easily and productively use Qt from D.
- jcelerier 4y agoBut .. how would that work ? What does "language-abstracted" means for something which is specifically about a language ? E.g. moc in c++ looks for your classes with a Q_OBJECT macro to generate the matching reflection & metaobject data in a .cpp: how does that work in a language that doesn't have preprocessor macros, or maybe even classes, e.g. Scheme or some BASIC dialect ? In addition, moc is only necessary for languages that do not have proper reflection & code generation facilities - if they do, it's entirely unnecessary as the metaobject code can just be generated in-language as part of the bindings you're mentioning. E.g. consider the python Qt bindings: they don't need a moc. Same for D.