Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?
-
I have no idea what it is to be doing.
Your understanding of this programming interface (and my API proposal) might be still incomplete at the moment.
But I am confident that you know already what such a function should be doing: You get a pointer for an object based on the provided input data.…, since it's a generic template type.
Can you become used to work with templates for software development and involved concepts?
-
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
Your understanding of this programming interface (and my API proposal) might be still incomplete at the moment.
That is for sure, as you have not proposed an API.
But I am confident that you know already what such a function should be doing: You get a pointer for an object based on the provided input data.
Humor me.
Can you become used to work with templates for software development and involved concepts?
I already am.
-
-
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
A function template declaration can be a succinct description for an application programming interface, can't it?
No, it can't. Not even by a long shot.
-
-
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
How can your view fit to the C++ standard template library?
It fits perfectly. The STL is comprised by many, many, many functions and classes. They even have bodies too, unlike the one declaration you wrote.
-
The STL is comprised by many, many, many functions and classes.
My proposal can eventually grow into another template library, can't it?
They even have bodies too, unlike the one declaration you wrote.
The desired implementation can evolve further if the required concepts will be generally accepted.
-
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
My proposal can eventually grow into another template library, can't it?
Only if you write the library, or at least the core of it.
The desired implementation can evolve further if the required concepts will be generally accepted.
The only thing that's going to be generally accepted is written code, i.e. an implementation. Since you have written none, none is going to evolve.
-
The only thing that's going to be generally accepted is written code, i.e. an implementation.
Some software designers expect the development of specific concepts before concrete programming.
Template programming can help to achieve a safer coding style. -
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
Some software designers expect the development of specific concepts before concrete programming.
@elfring, discussing "specific concepts" with you is difficult because your posts are unclear. If you write code, then your ideas will be clearer and easier to understand.
-
discussing "specific concepts" with you is difficult because your posts are unclear.
I hope that the involved communication difficulties can be resolved after a bit more time.
If you write code, then your ideas will be clearer and easier to understand.
- Can your desire for “source code” distract from the really relevant functional design?
- Can other information presentation variants and communication tools help more to achieve also a better common understanding?
-
I'll take the liberty to answer instead of @JKSH.
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
I hope that the involved communication difficulties can be resolved after a bit more time.
Your hopes are falling short. If you don't make an effort to provide what is required for a conversation, then the conversation is nonexistent. You don't. You don't answer questions, you don't in any way try to give back what was asked for, and you randomly pick up parts of the sentences to try and extend this thread.
Can your desire for “source code” distract from the really relevant functional design?
It can't. Source code is the product of thought in this community. Arguing excessively and arguing against providing source code is not going to work. We want to see you're serious enough about your claim that you're willing to put an effort in defending it. Empty platitudes and (semi)random links to documentation(s) are not going to be entertained.
Can other information presentation variants and communication tools help more to achieve also a better common understanding?
Common understanding is a two-way street. If you're not willing to meet us halfway I see no reason any of us to want to waste our time.
-
You don't answer questions,
I find this information inappropriate.
you don't in any way try to give back what was asked for, …
I chose to respond in different ways.
Arguing excessively and arguing against providing source code is not going to work.
- Are there any developers around who can clarify design extensions without thinking only in source code?
- Can the original development idea become more interesting?
Common understanding is a two-way street.
Can the clarification of design aspects from a function template declaration help here?
-
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
I find this information inappropriate.
Yeah, me too.
I chose to respond in different ways.
Yeah, me too.
- Are there any developers around who can clarify design extensions without thinking only in source code?
We don't think only in source code, but we find it as a useful way to clarify what we mean. Are you able to clarify your design extensions through source code?
- Can the original development idea become more interesting?
Not unless you make it more interesting by including some source that we can discuss.
Can the clarification of design aspects from a function template declaration help here?
Nope, but a class with its function bodies would help.
-
Are you able to clarify your design extensions through source code?
My published software development activities demonstrate that such contributions can happen.
Not unless you make it more interesting by including some source that we can discuss.
How will your interests evolve for application programming interfaces expressed in the format of function template declarations?
Nope, but a class with its function bodies would help.
Can it occasionally be more helpful to clarify software design properties before attempting a specific implementation?
-
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
My published software development activities demonstrate that such contributions can happen.
Not from what I was able to see.
How will your interests evolve for application programming interfaces expressed in the format of function template declarations?
They will not. My interests have evolved already and in their current state of evolution they require hard facts, evidence if you will.
Can it occasionally be more helpful to clarify software design properties before attempting a specific implementation?
Occasionally it can, but not in this case.
-
They will not.
Can this kind of feedback express another kind of change resistance?
Occasionally it can,
It is nice that you can follow this view to some degree.
but not in this case.
I prefer a stricter separation between a software design draft and a possible prototype implementation here.
-
@elfring said in Increasing usage for C++ new operators based on data model indexes?:
Can this kind of feedback express another kind of change resistance?
I don't resist change. You have not proposed a change but a hypothesis, it's yet to be proven if it can be made into a change.
I prefer a stricter separation between a software design draft and a possible prototype implementation here.
That's your prerogative, just don't expect people to write the code for you.
-
Since we didn't make it explicit so far: we think your idea is really, really, bad. We tried to explain you why it's bad but you either decided to ignore us or just don't understand models enough to see the faults.
Proposing useful extensions is one thing, making us waste time discussing changes that are so bad they would get shot out in the first code review stage is another
-
we think your idea is really, really, bad.
So it seems that we stumble on a conflict because of varying imaginations for further software evolution.
Our ways of thinking about software design aspects are generally different.I am curious if any other Qt user or contributor would like to adjust the mentioned design details any more.
