On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 02:53:37 PDT Volker Hilsheimer via Development wrote: > If we can have (1), i.e. > > using Qt::equals; > equals(a, b); > > why do we need qEquals?
See my other email: the (1) is not discoverable, teachable, or particularly understandable by average C++ developers. It is not a good corner of C++. (4) (the convenience function) is what users expect. Except that we don't need it to be called qEquals, because we have an even better name for it: operator== -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
