On Tuesday 17 May 2011 12:38:53 ext Stephen Bryant wrote: > Hi André, > > On 17/05/2011 10:26, Andre Somers wrote: > > I agree there, though there are things to considder. Like, what would you > > return from a method like QList::indexOf()? > > Ummm.. std::out_of_range?
And that's, of course, source compatible. > The question is, why are we using a size variable for error reporting? > > I think STL's interface is cleaner in this regard. Too bad it's not as > feature-rich as Qt. Then, please, use the standard containers. There's nothing wrong with that. > What seems to be missing is this QList method: > > iterator find( const T & value, > const_iterator from = constBegin() ) > // returns end() if not found > > Maybe we could get that in Qt5! Adding functions is less of a problem. > >> That said, I'd much prefer ssize_t to the current int. The 2GB limit on > >> 64bit systems would disappear, without impacting 32bit systems. > > Then we are back with data exchange issues, are we not? How would a 32 bit > > Qt application deal with a data file that contains a list of 2^32 + x > > elements? Or that requires an address space larger than 2^32? > > I have to ask - how do you download a file >4GB on a 32bit system right > now? That has more than 2^32 elements. :-) > > As others have mentioned, the wire format must be fixed. I would also > hope that the sender checks whether the receiver can handle that much > data first! Sure. App1 writes to a file, and a week later the _file_ checks whether it's readable by App2 and reports an error back to App1... Andre' _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
