That is hilarious! Watman!

https://forum.qt.io/category/5/qt-io-webservices

You're welcome !

Happy hacking ! :)

Just in case someone is still looking for a Qt web framework and find this thread on Google, there is the Cutelyst framework, Qt based, C++11, small footprint, supports HTTP, FastCGI and uWSGI protocols, API very close to Catalyst framework, it started in 2013 and is actively maintained and improved, benchmarks will be released on #13 Techempower's round.
Have fun!
http://www.cutelyst.org

@Aras
Too complicated for me :) My experience on the neptune demo is limited to seeing it one time running at an event.

Neptune looks like it could run on any machine, but it does have some imports in it. The Automotive list is probably the place to ask for tips.

@John_38 said:

I have found !!!!
Big thank to @JohanSolo !
Code: HWND hwnd = FindWindow (0, QString("Call of Duty® - ship - %1").arg(ui->lineEdit->text()).toStdWString().c_str());

Good job! You're welcome.

Thanks, I hope you like it!

hope it could support Chrome extension

Hi,

I don't have anything to add to the Qt-.NET comparison or the commercial pricing, but here's some other bits:

@primem0ver said:

I don't remember there being a numeric up/down control.

QSpinBox and QDoubleSpinBox have been part of Qt since its early days.

The tree view in Visual Studio used for navigation for example has different types of views and viewers built into it so that accessing file and projects is handled naturally from a variety of different object types so that you know exactly what your looking at. In Qt Creator, I only have one view format (that works... see below) and the default view doesn't have any additional view options besides a file view. When a file or reason for an object isn't apparent, and no file exists to give you feedback, there is no information/feedback at all. (Different outlining options seem to exist, but they are not automatically populated and most don't seem to work).

It's not quite clear to me which view you're referring to, but are these what you're looking for?: http://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-quick-tour.html#browsing-project-contents

Could you describe in more detail the things that "don't seem to work"? (i.e. what you expected to see, and what you got instead)

@Joel-Bodenmann
One of the reasons I stick to real CPUs. ;)
Joke aside, I leave that not-enough ram/CPU time struggle to engineers/embedded devs, I don't have the stomach for it to be honest. :D

As a side note I'm not completely convinced using #define for constants is really warranted.
If you're doing a comparison for example, this would (if I remember correctly) expand to something along the lines of:

mov eax, 0x... # Set the constant test eax, [0x...] # Do the comparison with a field from memory

If you use a simple constant (const static variable), the above should be pretty much the same:

mov eax, [0x...] # Set the constant (from memory this time) test eax, [0x...] # Do the comparison with a field from memory

@Teh-Me
You're welcome.

PS.
Please mark the topic as solved.

I have already facing problem in QT 4 so now trying to QT 5 .Now I am going to use
QT 5 for set top box .In that I am going to use fancy browser .

Hi and welcome to devnet,

What do you mean by enable debug prints in Qt 4.8.5 ? For your application of in Qt itself ?

On a side note, your version is a bit old. You should consider to switch to at least 4.8.7 if not Qt 5.

@Chris-Kawa

One of them is that "the closest match" is chosen i.e. for f(a, 3) a free standing function would be preferred, and, if there isn't one, members of A are checked for match.

Which would basically mean to pile on the ever so problematic partial inference of types, and as you said add yet another level of complexity for the programmer. One of the big critiques about C++ is it's implicit conversion (I suppose inherited through C) and this "unified call" syntax just makes that ever more implicit.

but apparently (fortunately) that would break too much code out there.

Thank god for small favors ... :)

I really don't like all this, but to be entirely fair, members are really no different from free functions and "this" injection is just a syntax sugar.

Sure, however the purpose of having members is to have the "this" injection. Otherwise we'd all write functions that operate on POD structures ... oh, well, we used to do it so why would be so reluctant to do it again ...?

On some level it would make sense... i guess... ugh, no, I still don't like it :P

I'm with you, Chris, sadly I don't get to vote!

I liked the old color better (was a little bit nicer to the eye), but the new shape is a huge improvement. The old icon looked... well old somehow.

Also, I think if used everywhere, this icon will increase Qt's recognition (as it stands out more and is easily remembered and distinguished from any other green icon).

Thanks,
Yes known issue, and hopefully fixed very soon now.

Hi @muun

Could you please explain what exactly is the problem. From the perspective of someone who would like to fix the issue it isn't "nuff said".

We try not to use colours (especially the reb/green combination) to signify options. Colour may be used to present something or to highlight something.
Also green is the colour of Qt, so that will not go away. The font colours were darkened from the original to make things more readable. The background for the essential text is white, with very dark gray (or black) text.

Also, you really get a better response when you do not swear in your topic.

OK many thanks, will try that tomorrow now, am out of work...

Keep you posted !

EDIT : Hello, sorry for the late reply, it's OK now it works, i just install new libraries (Qt5.6) and the new QtCreator.
Thanks a lot once again.
Just one more information do i have to keep a relica of the old qt creator version ?