[Kde-bindings] SMOKEv4 proposals

[Arno Rehn]

On 10/09/12 13:39, Richard Dale wrote:
> On 09/09/2012 09:32 PM, Arno Rehn wrote:
>> On 09/09/12 05:55, Richard Dale wrote:
>>> On 09/08/2012 11:25 PM, Arno Rehn wrote:
>>>> Can you think of anything else?
>>> It would be nice to have meta data about object ownership, so that the
>>> bindings would know after you call QObject::setParent() the parent
>>> QObject will delete the child and so on. Phil Thompson suggested that we
>>> could use the meta data from PyQt for this as I don't think it can be
>>> generated automatically and it would save a lot of work. I think other
>>> existing bindings already have this data in various forms too. But maybe
>>> we could convert it to some kind of XML format that looks similar to the
>>> current smokegen metadata.
>> Ah yes. I believe something like this for the QGraphics* stuff would
>> also be good. Do you know where to look for the data? Looks like it
>> isn't in the release tarballs of PyQt.
> It would be in the .sip files I think, which wouldn't part of a 
> non-developer release, rather than somewhere separate. The QtJambi and 
> other Qt projects (including PySide?) have it as xml I think.
Good, I'll take a look.

> More general points:
> 
> I think it would be best to do a reference Qt5 Smoke binding at the same 
> time as improving smokegen, otherwise it is hard to know if some feature 
> works in practice. That could be your 'qt crack' or QtRuby 3.0 if I can 
> manage to restart perhaps.
Yes, I'm already using qtcrack to test the new features. I am also
planning to make it work with Qt5.
Nevertheless, it would be great if you could restart QtRuby 3.0.

> I've done quite a lot more with QMetaType programming in QtRuby 3.0 for 
> marshalling lists and so on. I'm not sure if that could be made language 
> specific, although it is derived from code in the JSmoke QScript 
> bindings. That is an example of something that I think it is too much of 
> a big step to think of 'abstract features' that you want to put into the 
> next version of Smoke without doing something language specific first 
> and only then trying to generalize.
Yes. I've already taken a quick glance at that and I think it looks
really good. It'd be nice if we could generalize that for other languages.

> I saw the crack code has 'moc types' in it, and that definately should 
> go for future bindings.
Yep, I don't think any Qt binding can go without them.

-- 
Arno Rehn