+1 for proposal 3.
I don’t see any reason to repeat all the arguments against the original
proposal, I cannot agree more.
Ivan
> 24 апр. 2020 г., в 08:57, Joerg Bornemann <joerg.bornem...@qt.io> написал(а):
>
> On 4/23/20 15:52, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>>> Proposed:
>>>
>>> template <typename T> using QVector = QList<T>; // mark deprecated
>>> template <typename T> class QList { $(implementation to be moved); }
>> Proposal 2:
>> template <typename T> class QList { $(implementation to be moved); }
>> template <typename T> using QVector = QList<T>;
>> no deprecation.
>
> +1 for proposal 2.
>
> Alternatively, proposal 3 (aka "do almost nothing"):
> template <typename T> class QVector { implementation }
> template <typename T> using QList = QVector<T>;
>
> No deprecation of QVector.
> No replacement of QList with QVector in our API.
>
> Rationale: QList is our default sequential container, and in Qt6 we just
> change its implementation.
>
> The "people have been told many times to not use QList" argument can be
> countered with "this has been fixed in Qt6".
>
> The "vector is a silly name from a mathematical standpoint" argument is
> valid, but vector is an established term in C++ world. Sorry, that ship has
> sailed.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joerg
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
