From: Philippe M. <phi...@gm...> - 2008-02-21 07:45:18
|
I've been experimenting with the RG GUI to implement a marker-based accelerator mechanism, but I lost the last two days trying to compile a new Qt object. Unfortunately it seems the makefile does not generate the MOC file included by my Qt object, as I would have expected (or hoped ;-). I tried to cmake again in order to update the dependencies but it does not work: I'm probably missing something and need to update some cmake config file, but I can't figure out which one. Thanks for the help. -- Best regards, Philippe. |
From: Philippe M. <phi...@gm...> - 2008-02-22 17:01:56
|
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Philippe Macaire <phi...@gm...> wrote: > I've been experimenting with the RG GUI to implement a marker-based > accelerator mechanism, but I lost the last two days trying to compile > a new Qt object. Unfortunately it seems the makefile does not generate > the MOC file included by my Qt object, as I would have expected (or > hoped ;-). I tried to cmake again in order to update the dependencies > but it does not work: I'm probably missing something and need to > update some cmake config file, but I can't figure out which one. OK, it's solved. I've figured out I had to add an instruction such as KDE3_AUTOMOC(${base_SRCS}) in file CMakeLists.txt In fact the class I would like to make a QObject is under base, which contains no other QObject class requiring meta-object compilation. Do anybody think it may be a bad idea to do so? I may not have enough insight to fully evaluate its impact. -- Best regards, Philippe. |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2008-02-23 09:53:01
|
On 22/02/2008, Philippe Macaire <phi...@gm...> wrote: > In fact the class I would like to make a QObject is under base, which > contains no other QObject class requiring meta-object compilation. > > Do anybody think it may be a bad idea to do so? I may not have enough > insight to fully evaluate its impact. For historical, or traditional, or something reasons we don't make any use of Qt at all in the base directory. I think we should probably keep it that way, unless for some reason we come to a general decision to port base to Qt. Mixing the paradigms (no Qt in base, except for this one class) would not be a good thing, I think. Chris |
From: Philippe M. <phi...@gm...> - 2008-02-23 12:41:05
|
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Chris Cannam <ca...@al...> wrote: > For historical, or traditional, or something reasons we don't make any > use of Qt at all in the base directory. I think we should probably > keep it that way, unless for some reason we come to a general decision > to port base to Qt. Mixing the paradigms (no Qt in base, except for > this one class) would not be a good thing, I think. OK, I expected that... that's why I asked :-) I'll think over a different design (I may have no other choice anyway, since what I've done so far seems flawed -- probably by design). Thanks for this useful feedback. -- Best regards, Philippe. |