On 10/17/11 1:35 PM, "ext Oswald Buddenhagen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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. Being able to change it is ok, but I do thing having a reasonable default is valuable. Otherwise everything's large by default, which would IMO lead to rather bad characteristics for simple&small user defined classes. Lars _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
