On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:52:07AM +0000, Lars Knoll wrote: > > On 2 Nov 2018, at 09:02, André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 08:42:52PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > >> What do we do? > >> > >> Option 1: do nothing, wait for Qt 6 and do the change then > >> Option 2: insert #if in our API, starting now > >> Option 3: use #if per class, starting now > >> Option 4: create a central #if and use this new type, starting now > > > > Option 5: Leave as-is, also in Qt 6. > > > > Known and bearable effort to handle the recurring 'why do you use > > int?' threads. > > > > No effort for existing users, which otherwise will face lots > > of size mismatch warnings in their code. > > And the drawback, that people can’t use large data sets with our containers.
For large data sets the Qt containers usually aren't a good choice anyway, as the trade-off of the implicit sharing is often not worth it in that case. > The size mismatch warnings users will get in Qt 6 are IMO not a huge > issue. The narrowing to a smaller size does not break compatibility, > as long as no container overflows in size (which it couldn’t with > code based on Qt 5). > > > So my vote actually goes for option 4. We introduce a central type > that’s int in Qt 5, qsizetype in Qt 6, and start using it. That allows > us to introduce it then class by class and fix any issues we find > around it. *shrug* I won't fight such a solution, but reserve the right to say "told you so" every now and then. 1/2 ;-) Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
