[jcelerier]

> Signals and slots compile into plain C++ functions. The input language (the unnamed Qt superset of C++) has a notion of signals and slots, the output language (C++) does not have any such notion.

If that was the case, gcc and clang would not be able to build Qt files. Yet the following compiles without issues :

    echo "#include <QObject>\nstruct foo : QObject { signals: void bar(); public slots: void blah() { } };" | g++ -std=c++11 -fPIC -I /usr/include/qt/QtCore -c -x c++ -

which is all that is needed to ensure that some code is indeed 100% valid C++ code - that it is idiomatic is a wholly different question.

hell, you can even generate the signals code without moc if you are ok with more macros (https://github.com/woboq/verdigris)

[weberc2]

No, it just means that Qt is valid C++, not that the two have equivalent semantics (which is necessary for Qt to be exactly C++ and not a bastardized version thereof, which is what we are debating). If I we’re wrong and you were right, the moc would be purely optional; it would serve no purpose, and Qt programs compiled with moc would behave exactly as those compiled without.