[Kde-bindings] SMOKEv4 proposals

Arno Rehn arno at arnorehn.de
Sat Sep 8 19:39:56 UTC 2012


On 08/09/12 20:24, Dimitar Dobrev wrote:
> (4) I can't say I completely understand this feature but if this
> singleton is the better solution, i.e. it'd gather all these
> dispersed SmokeClass and etc. types, why should it be optional? Why
> not make it the only option?
Because I want to keep compatibility with C. So if you want to interface
with Smoke without using C++, you are free to do so, but you'll have to
do the low-level stuff yourself (assemblygen is doing that, for example).

> (5) I don't think the difference is that large but as taking the
> argument names from files performs better after all and it's already
> done and works, why not simply leave it as is?
It's simply not as nice and clean :)

> (6) How about including that mechanism (either in SMOKE or as an
> addition to SMOKE) that sends notifications when any Qt object is
> destroyed, not just SMOKE Qt objects as it is now?
I guess you mean connecting to QObject's destroyed() signal. Yes, I plan
to add that functionality in one way or another to the high-level API.

-- 
Arno Rehn


More information about the Kde-bindings mailing list