On 7 October 2014 11:16, Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> wrote: >> Ugh, that begins to sound like Java. Let's have a wrapper for a >> wrapper... please don't go that way.
> We have QSize and QPoint and they're used ubiquitously in Qt. But, by your > rationale, everyone should be using two ints instead, so let's remove them! > How's that anything to do with Java? C++ is made from the ground up for > lightweight abstractions such as a size, a point and a file path. It's Java > that isn't. QSize, QPoint, QRect, etc. are useful, very convenient, intuitive and a good thing to have. For file paths, I feel QString is really enough. Changing it to something else because of a few corner cases seems like an overkill to me. We already have a lot of classes that are connected with paths and the file system (QFile, QFileInfo, QDir, QDirIterator, and more), that is enough. In my view, at least. My reference to Java comes from their love for large amount of abstractions and interfaces, where even the simplest action requires creation of several objects of various classes that can't talk directly to one another. One of the beautiful things about Qt is that you can do a lot in a very few lines of code. Current use of QString - IMO - works just fine, but maybe I have misunderstood something here. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
