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 Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development