News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Qt 6.0 by paulryanrogers on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @11:24AM (#25347356)
Can you provide an example of a comment sufficiently technical to be worthy?
Re:Qt 6.0 by brnt on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @11:37AM (#25347591)
I'm saying there isn't one (well, a hundred messages in and there are a handful at last :) ). Nobody is discussing what's new for instance. I'd be interested in the status of moc (isn't mentioned on the page).
Re:Qt 6.0 by stagger87 on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @12:27PM (#25348421)
The MOC is still present in Qt 6.0, if that is what you are asking.
Re:Qt 6.0 by kevin_thibedeau on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:21PM (#25352957)
Even with CMake?
Re:Qt 6.0 by omegote on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @07:01PM (#25353422)
Question should be "even with C++17?". Cmake has had moc and uic support for years now. The question is why they don't leverage the c++17 features to get rid of moc, ffs.
Re:Qt 6.0 by marcthe12 on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @11:35PM (#25355396)
There is some features used by moc expected in c++23 like reflection. I think that in qt 7 they will drop moc an some stl replcements in qtcore
Re:Qt 6.0 by rualca on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @07:08PM (#25353481)
> Even with CMake?

Why would Cmake eliminate the need for Qt's moc? Cmake is a build system/makefile generator. You don't generate c++ from form files or Qt-annotated C++ files out of magic.

Re:Qt 6.0 by alvarelle on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @06:55PM (#25353360)
Yes. That's orthogonal. And people have been using CMake with Qt (and moc) for almost as long as cmake exists