@AnneRanch said in Is "moc" actually helping to debug?:
Let me put this the silliest way - if I do not have an object BT_TabWidget constructed nowhere in the code then I am getting "you are missing destructor SOMEWHERE " from all of this.
And I will not ask why I am not getting "no BT_TabWidget (object) found " instead., So I will go back to code and verify all BT_TabWidget CODE myself.
When you compile stuff, the assembly is generated for the classes not the objects. There's no requirement that you must have an instance of some class to have the latter compiled into code. Or to put it the silliest way I can think of: classes are not objects, nor vice versa.
As far as C++ goes, all virtual functions shall be defined if they're not a pure virtual for the build process to succeed, and if you go through your code I'm sure you're going to find out that this particular class has a destructor, which was declared (hence it's an override due to its base class' destructor being virtual), and that destructor hasn't been defined.
@wrosecrans said in Is "moc" actually helping to debug?:
I don't have any children. Can you tell me where my son Gary isn't? It's impossible to point to a specific place and say that's where something isn't.
lol!
If it doesn't exist, it isn't everywhere.
We could argue some quantum mechanics about that ... ;)