On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 08:11:44AM +0000, ext [email protected] wrote: > On 10/16/11 5:12 PM, "ext Olivier Goffart" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Sunday 16 October 2011 16:21:40 Thiago Macieira wrote: > >> Option 3: make it QList<T> be an actual QVector<T> for movable types, > > > >This is the obvious solutions... > > Yes, I'd be in favor of this solution as well. But it is the one that > requires most work. > i think rittk has already done half of it. i've been discussing this matter with him for half a year now.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:28:35AM +0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday, 17 de October de 2011 10:18:16 João Abecasis wrote: > > Option 4: Move the decision out of QList<T>, so that there's a default > > policy does what we want for the types you mention, but we still allow > > users pick the behaviour for their own types. This would also allow us to > > tweak the strategy for future types. > > I don't like the idea of having extra template parameters to our container > classes. That makes forward-declaring them more difficult and it creates the > problem that SCARY iterators is trying to solve in STL (post-C++11). > > The other option is to have a traits class that is automatically used, like > QTypeInfo. That is more amenable. > well, i consider that self-evident. i would just make Q_DECLARE_TYPEINFO for Q_LARGE_TYPE completely explicit. _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
