I don't understand this question.

How do you think about information from Cppcheck's forum and issue tracker? Do you care for software aspects which can be discussed there?

Of course I'll cast my -1 vote as well.

I'll add to point 1:

If the data contained in the model is all of basic types or implicitly shared types then it's possible to already use the current framework without ever triggering any expensive* copy

, to point 2:

There's no clarity on how to support different types in different roles would we need an additional template argument for each used role beyond Qt::UserRole? is so the problems above grow exponentially with the roles

And to point 3:

No possible implementation for a reliable dataChanged emission if model internals are exposed directly

*expensive = a copy that implies more that a:

memcpy of less than 65bits and an increase/decrease of a numeric reference counter

@elfring said in Support for multi-index containers?:

Would you like to distinguish any more between the usage of one- and two-dimensional structures for data models?

Nope, the 2 dimensional structure is strictly more general of the 1D version so anything that goes for the first works in the second case.

beginRant();

You have been discussing a lot of theoretical problems relating to models across different threads. In all of them the feeling has been that you are uselessly overcomplicating things.
I feel it would be useful for you and easier for us to walk you through a concrete example of what you are trying to achieve rather than discuss endlessly on theoretical concepts.

endRant();

@elfring said in Software development challenges around index creation for data models:

Will your data source work without hierarchies then?

I don't follow. This is a table model, there's no hierarchy here.

Hi,

QAbstractListModel

That I don't know.

If you have an interesting re-usable model to share then you can do a submission.

Imagine these methods become available in a future version of Qt:

I suggest to take another look for a clarification try around the topic “Checking the API status for the variable “Private d” of the QVariant class”.

@Christian-Ehrlicher said in Support for QStandardItem proxies?:

But only when Qt was compiled in debug mode

Yes, as the docs say using invalid indexes remains undefined behaviour, I am just trying to help users spot these cases

Unless you go into very specific obscure cases

Another software design possibility would be to fiddle with proxies for data models (and their items), wouldn't it?

@elfring said in Support for constructing QStandardItem objects from QVariant references?:

I would appreciate if I can reuse existing functionality from a higher level base class.

Sorry! I just re-read this line and realized you said "higher level base class". In this case, please ignore what I said about choosing pros and cons.

If you mean outside of answering question here in forum, then no thank you. :)

I am curious then if you would like to clarify related development topics.

Do you know any higher level tools which can display structural differences between standard item models in a clear way? Have you got any experiences with “diff views” in this software area?