You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
From the API, doesn't seem to support it. From the code, it appears as if it's always meant to using base class implementation as identifier for given component type?
Why does the macro consider s=superClass to have a possibility of being IComponent? This will never happen because IComponent is an interface, not a class, anyway (I think, from what i remembered with superClass).
Also, when I use reference-based typedef instead for View<T> (eg. typedef SomethingReusable = { } ) , it doesn't work properly when I wish the macro was also capable of determining the component fields from typedefs, class fields, etc. besides anonymous structure.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From the API, doesn't seem to support it. From the code, it appears as if it's always meant to using base class implementation as identifier for given component type?
Why does the macro consider
s=superClass
to have a possibility of beingIComponent
? This will never happen becauseIComponent
is an interface, not a class, anyway (I think, from what i remembered withsuperClass
).Also, when I use reference-based typedef instead for
View<T>
(eg.typedef SomethingReusable = { }
) , it doesn't work properly when I wish the macro was also capable of determining the component fields from typedefs, class fields, etc. besides anonymous structure.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: