Once we had QString and QByteArray (and the admittedly ill-conceived QStringRef). Now we have QStringView, QAnyStringView, QByteArrayView, ... and when asking what the prefered getter/setter-signature for "Qt-style" interfaces is the answer I get is "We'd guess $X, but the only guy that knows for sure is on holiday". And that's for "developers using Qt", not "developers _of_ Qt". Is that something you'd call "complicated"?
While I can sympathize with the idea of #pragma once, this is not a fair comparison. The current set of classes, while complicated, also does a lot more than what we previously had. If you want the only the old functionality you can just restrict yourself to QString, QByteArray, and QStringView. That's not actually more complicated.
But if you want classes that deal with UTF-8 and with views on different kinds of string data, you obviously need some more types.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
