(Sorry, this was meant to go to the list!) On 4/19/20 2:21 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
I don't think we need "incomparable" here.QVariant(TypeA) and QVariant(TypeB) can be ordered for different TypeA and TypeB based e.g. on alphabetical order of their .typeName(). If wanted, this can be refined to make e.g. all integral types comparable.What about non-integral types? QVariants can't really be anything but weakly ordered as I see it, as some of the things it contains are either non- comparable or weakly ordered themselves.
Before bikeshedding on the actual semantics we _want_ to have: if they don't 100% match the ones we have right now, then it's a silent breakage for end-users, which is a very bad idea. So, if we ever want to have the relational operators in QVariant with "better" semantics, we need an upgrade path that clearly signals the breakage. Any proposals for that? My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
