El Sunday 12 July 2015, Marc Mutz escribió: > On Sunday 12 July 2015 13:11:54 Smith Martin wrote: > > And yet you wrote a blog about it instead of submitting the info to us to > > update the QList documentation. Currently, the QList page says this: > > > > "QList<T>, QLinkedList<T>, and QVector<T> provide similar functionality. > > Here's an overview: For most purposes, QList is the right class to use. > > Its index-based API is more convenient than QLinkedList's iterator-based > > API, and it is usually faster than QVector because of the way it stores > > its items in memory. It also expands to less code in your executable." > > > > If your argument is correct, then all three of those sentences are false, > > yes? > > Correct.
With respect to "less code in your executable", note that in your blog post you said: > On the positive side, QList is a real memory saver when we talk about the > amount of code generated. That is because QList is but a thin wrapper > around an internal class that maintains the memory for void*s. This leads > to more compact code, because all the memory management code is shared > between QLists of different types. Does this mean that it changed in Qt5, or am I missing something? Because I still see QVector being a pure header class, while some part of QList is in the cpp file. -- Alex (a.k.a. suy) | GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2 http://barnacity.net/ | http://disperso.net _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
