From: Mathew Robertson (mathew.robertson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-15 21:57:22
> > 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
> 2. std::string
> 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.
I'm not sure that is valid.
Take a TreeList as an example. The items in a treelist are almost always sub-classes, based on some type of generic 'TreeItem' class. I'm not sure that a TreeItem can always be represented as a string.
Also, the position of a treeitem (within the treelist), may not necessarily be able to be stringified.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk