On 18 March 2017 at 23:51, Marc Mutz <[email protected]> wrote: > We dug us a very deep pit here. If you compare QPair's implementation with a > typical std::pair's, you'll see that it's just totally pointless to keep > classes alive that have 1:1 std equivalents. We'll just never get to the QOI > of the std classes. Our time would be better spent fixing bugs in std > implementations.
Well, having written the conditionally explicit constructors for pair, tuple and optional in libstdc++, I can certainly recommend against trying to duplicate that work. :) > Our containers _still_ don't support move semantics correctly. Maybe Ville was > hired to change that. If so, I'm sorry to say: what a waste of talent. Oh, not to worry, there's plenty of stuff I can be doing, container move semantics were probably hardly the only thing I was envisioned to work on. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
