Marc Mutz wrote:
> One reason I'm against keeping "QList" as a fully supported Qt container
> name is the unfortunate impedance mismatch (all Qt's fault) with
> std::list. I don't want Qt to continue to poison people's minds with that
> mixup.
Both the STL and Qt are equally at fault for using a terse, incompletely
specified name there. The STL type should be called linked_list (just like
the Qt and Java equivalents). The Qt QList could probably have received a
better name too, especially considering the STL list was there first (though
there is at least a logic behind calling the "default" list type just
"list").
It is unfortunate that the STL consistently uses terse misleading names
(e.g. "empty"), and even abbreviations such as "deque".
> Our containers _still_ don't support move semantics correctly.
Move semantics are almost useless in a world of implicitly shared
containers. You save the reference counting and that's all.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
