Em terça-feira, 6 de setembro de 2016, às 17:10:19 PDT, Kevin Kofler escreveu: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > It was a *choice* not to depend on the C++ Standard Library ABI for > > features outside of the language support. The choice was made during Qt > > 5.0 development, in response to the -no-stl option being removed. It was > > originally done so that applications and libraries on Apple platforms > > could choose to use libstdc++ or libc++: it was common back in 2012 that > > applications would need to link to proprietary libraries that used > > libstdc++ and could not easily be recompiled. That choice extended to GCC > > 4.9 & 5.0 that broke compatibility, and it turned out to be a bonus for us > > because Qt-only applications did not need to be recompiled. > > I think it was a mistake to remove -no-stl to begin with, and that Qt API > should not be littered with ugly std:: APIs, not just for ABI reasons, but > also for API (consistency) reasons.
I disagree, even though the build times have significantly increased. > Why can't Qt continue to offer better Q* equivalents as it has always done? > What benefit does it bring to users to deprecate nice APIs for less nice > ones just because the latter are part of the compiler? Marc will have more reasons, but I'll just give you one: iterators. Why should we not have the iterator tags? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
