From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-12 15:18:53
> You have made a good point. I still feel uncomfortable about parsing header
> files to determine type information. If header files were used, since
> run-time reflection does not exist, one would have to inject the correct
> code into source files based on design-time decisions. But it does seem as
I think reflection in general is very different from reflection for a GUI.
When you have a GUI control, you want to apply reflection for a few of
its properties. You won't have #ifdefs (or at least I would consider it
bad design). Case in point: its interface should be extremely simple and
easy to parse.
You shouldn't need complex information like reflection for virtual
functions, overloading etc.
Even reflected property types should be of trivial types:
1. build in types
3. types that can simply be read from /written to strings.
For case 3., you might also have a validation function which will be
used in design-mode to validate user input.
At least that's what I want.
-- John Torjo, Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -- v1.5 - tooltips at your fingertips (work for menus too!) + bitmap buttons (work for MessageBox too!) + tab dialogs, hyper links, lite html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk