On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:57:48 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 2 de maio de 2012 10.21.36, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > In a related patch I suggested something like
> >
> > int QRegExp::foo() const
> > {
> >
> > QRegExp copy = *this;
> > return copy.foo();
> >
> > }
> >
> > which although being source compatible, is behaviour incompatible
> > (QRegExp users do expect const methods to change the object -- it's
> > even documented!).
>
> Indeed, so I think this is actually worse of the three options.
>
> Reverting completely means we accept that QRegExp is fundamentally flawed
> and people should port away from it immediately. I'd even tack a notice to
> the class saying that its const methods are not thread-safe.
>
> Adding Olivier's patch means we do a little work to improve code in an
> otherwise Done class, with the ability to keep the old code compiling if one
> so wishes (with the same bugs, of course).
>
> Adding yours would mean silently changing behaviour. That's far worse.
>
> > So it's a matter of deciding what's the least worst option.My preference is reverting completely. It's no change from the Qt 4 behaviour (which is good) and QRegExp can probably be really deprecated in a few releases once QRegularExpression has taken hold. Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
