Returning C++ references from more programming interfaces?

elfring

How would you structure something like …

I would expect that the member variable will be changed only if no C++ exceptions were thrown.
Thus I would interpret the following approach as an useful software design option.

void modify(my_data const & md)
{
m_value = md;
emit valueChanged();
}

Would you like to extend such an example with function objects or the application of lambdas?

VRonin

m_value = md;

So what's the advantage of using a reference if you still call the assignment operator (that would trigger a copy)? and what's the difference between your modify and my setValue?

elfring

… and what's the difference between your modify and my setValue?

I omitted an equality check in my example.
But I guess that this implementation detail distracts from the original issue of my feature request here.

Would you like to adjust programming interfaces around container class variants any further?

VRonin

You didn't answer

@VRonin said in Returning C++ references from more programming interfaces?:

How would you structure something like int& value() {return m_value;} that assures you the signal valueChanged is emitted in case the reference is changed?

elfring

You didn't answer

I suggest to distinguish the update scope and the actor which should trigger the desired change notification (by a specific function call).
Another software design option would be the use of a corresponding class, wouldn't it?

Example demo1;

struct notifier
{
 Example& ex;
 
 notifier(Example& target, int input)
 : ex(target)
 { ex[0] = input; }
 
 ~notifier()
 { ex.valueChanged(); }
} demo2(demo1, 123);

JKSH

@elfring, so you want programmers to replace Code 1 with Code 2; have I understood you correctly?

//======
// Code 1
//======
Example demo1;
demo1.setData(123); // Automatically emits valueChanged() immediately

//======
// Code 2
//======
Example demo1;
notifier demo2(demo1, 123);

// valueChanged() is emitted when demo2 is destroyed

I must say that Code 1 is a much more elegant and intuitive than Code 2.

elfring

so you want programmers to replace Code 1 with Code 2; …

Not really. - I suggest to choose between available software design options.

The standard behaviour of the function “QStandardItem::setData” is generally fine.
The software situaton might look different if more reference-returning functions from a container class like QVector will be taken into account.
A need can evolve to call the function “valueChanged” (or “dataChanged”) in a C++ destructor, can't it?

JKSH

@elfring said in Returning C++ references from more programming interfaces?:

so you want programmers to replace Code 1 with Code 2; …

Not really. - I suggest to choose between available software design options.

OK.

The standard behaviour of the function “QStandardItem::setData” is generally fine.

I'm glad you think it's generally fine.

The software situaton might look different if more reference-returning functions from a container class like QVector will be taken into account.

I already explained above why QStandardItem must not provide a reference to is internal data. Do you understand that explanation?

A need can evolve to call the function “valueChanged” (or “dataChanged”) in a C++ destructor, can't it?

No, it can't. The signal should be emitted immediately when the data is changed. It should not wait for the destructor of another struct/object.

elfring

Do you understand that explanation?

I can follow software development concerns (which were expressed here) to some degree.

The signal should be emitted immediately when the data is changed.

This expectation is also generally fine.

It should not wait for the destructor of another struct/object.

The available programming interfaces support to call desired functions in C++ destructors. You can choose under which circumstances such a software design approach will be appropriate.

JKSH

@elfring said in Returning C++ references from more programming interfaces?:

I can follow software development concerns (which were expressed here) to some degree.

That's good. So please address those concerns. For example, why should Qt provide extensions that break encapsulation and increase the risk of errors?

The signal should be emitted immediately when the data is changed.

This expectation is also generally fine.

Good.

It should not wait for the destructor of another struct/object.

The available programming interfaces support to call desired functions in C++ destructors. You can choose under which circumstances such a software design approach will be appropriate.

I cannot see any circumstance where such a software design approach will be appropriate.

elfring

For example, why should Qt provide extensions that break encapsulation and increase the risk of errors?

I suggest to use algorithms which can work together with container classes at more source code places.

JKSH

@elfring said in Returning C++ references from more programming interfaces?:

For example, why should Qt provide extensions that break encapsulation and increase the risk of errors?

I suggest to use algorithms which can work together with container classes at more source code places.

You did not address any of the concerns. You only added suggestions.

That is not acceptable. You must only submit ideas/proposals that don't break encapsulation.