On Friday 10 April 2015 14:06:18 André Somers wrote: > Marc Mutz schreef op 10-4-2015 om 13:29: [...] > > For one, you're not supoosed to inherit from value classes. For > > another... Oh, I think that's enough reasons :) > > That a religious argument instead of a technical one.
Avoiding undefined behaviour isn't "religious". It's deeply technical. See any C++ text book for why. > It was meant as a serious question. And this was a serious answer. :) > It looks to me like the chosen > alternative is more complex than what was there before, That's the bane of C++ library developers. They get to eat the mud so users can have nice shiny interfaces. In this case, after the change (and its completion) there's only one class that deals with lists of strings and not two. Easier. The user cannot accidentally invoke UB because there's only one class he needs to deal with. Safer. No extra code necessary for generic programming, as QList<QString> is fully featured. Easier. Less useless conversions between QList<QString> and QStringList. More performant. For us, a major advantage is that we can equip QVector<QString> with the same extended API as QStringList, easily. That'd just be the next step. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development