>I think the impedance mismatch here is that you use "list" to mean the same >thing as "array" or "vector" (in STL terms, not mathematically) while I only >use it to mean "linked list", in accordance with the STL.
I actually just mean it's a list, and I don't care how it is implemented. I can see that it makes a difference how it is implemented, depending on how it is used, but if the use is simply: 1) build the list once; 2) process the list once, and every time I add an element to the list I have to create it somewhere, I don't see why creating it on the heap is inefficient. martin ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Marc Mutz <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] HEADS UP: Don't use QList, use Q_DECLARE_TYPEINFO On Friday 10 July 2015 12:32:45 Smith Martin wrote: > Maybe it's just me, but I'm still not understanding your explanation, and I > don't think you are answering my question: I think the impedance mismatch here is that you use "list" to mean the same thing as "array" or "vector" (in STL terms, not mathematically) while I only use it to mean "linked list", in accordance with the STL. That just goes to show how bad of an influence QList has. But it never hid its design, and, indeed, the "default container" in Qt 3 was QValueList, which actually *was* a doubly-linked list. Why Qt always nominates a list as the default container while the STL recommends std::vector is one of the mysteries to which only Trolls know the answer :) -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
