On Thursday, 1 November 2018 19:18:11 PDT Kevin Kofler wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > We're studying what to do with QList, but the idea is that the name > > "QList" will be completely ok and identical to QVector. The technical > > mechanism is in flux. > > That means you will be pessimizing element inserts and removals from O(n) to > O(mn), where n is the length of the list and m the size of each element, > without offering a good alternative without that pessimization (sure, you > can use a QVector<T*> or QVector<SomeSmartPointer<T>>, but those have > somewhat different semantics and less convenient syntax).
Yes. Is that a widespread use? And will it be a perceptible change? Don't forget that m is a constant, for any given list. It's not a scalability problem, since no matter how many inputs the user provides, the size of the object will not change. > It won't make a difference for implicitly-shared objects (but QList already > works like a vector for those anyway), but for large in-place objects, it > can make a big difference. -- 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
