Am Montag, den 19.03.2012, 10:42 +0100 schrieb Thiago Macieira: > On segunda-feira, 19 de março de 2012 10.04.28, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > > Am Montag, den 19.03.2012, 08:01 +0000 schrieb Giuseppe D'Angelo: > > > 2) Document to end users that it cannot be assumed that qHash output or > > > QHash iteration order are stable, so people must not rely on that. > > > > Would that be sufficient to prevent 3rd-party code relying on stable > > iteration order from breaking? > > They shouldn't rely on that at all. The documentation of QHash says that it > produces an arbitrary but stable[1] order. > > As for the QtDBus problem, I am really not aware of any place where I wrote > code that depended on a specific order. If that happened, it was an > unintentional mistake. > > [1] note that the order is stable. Two hashing tables with the same elements > must produce the same order.
Yes, but the way I understood Giuseppe's mail, he is proposing to drop that property. That's why I ask: I am relatively sure I never relied on that stable ordering by purpose, but I wouldn't bet on never having relied on that property by accident. Latest when re-factoring, e.g. when changing from QMap to QHash, it is quite easy to accidentally introduce code that relies on QHash having stable order. Ciao, Mathias _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
