This looks like a bug. changes can either be a list of inline Change elements, or a list accessed by id or a property. The error message changes depending on the order. With an id first, it complains about missing a , for inline elements. With an inline element first, it complains about a missing { for ids.

import QtQuick 2.15 import QtQuick.Window 2.15 Window { MouseArea { anchors.fill: parent; onClicked: text.nextState() } Text { id: text anchors.centerIn: parent text: "click to change" PropertyChanges { id: a; target: text; color: 'red' } PropertyChanges { id: b; target: text; text: "State B" } state: "a" states: [ State { name: "a" changes: [ PropertyChanges { target: text; text: "State A" }, PropertyChanges { target: text; color: "blue" } ] }, State { name: "b" changes: [ a, b ] }, State { name: "c" // The next line causes a syntax error changes: [ PropertyChanges{ target: text; text: "State C" }, a ] } ] function nextState() { for (var i = 0; i < states.length; i++) { if (state === states[i].name) { state = states[(i + 1) % states.length].name; return; } } } } }

That said, I don't think I have ever seen a code base attempt to reuse a PropertyChange in this way. Organizing into base states that contain the common changes, and extended states that customize is usually the way it's done. With a *Change inline in a State, there no need to even mention changes

Hi @Kofr
Check out this example especially this file. There you can use findChild instead to find Converter and then get the data in the same way.

My point is simply that blind adherence a principle or method can actually be worse than fully understanding the needs and goals of what you are trying to do.

Amen.