On Monday, 17 de October de 2011 14:46:12 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 04:30:39PM +0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > > When I talked to João this week, he expressed the desire to unify the > > header code of QVector, QByteArray and QString. > > whether deriving from qvector makes sense i don't know, but i'm very > much in favor of implementing QString and QByteArray as > QStringBase<QChar> and QStringBase<QByte>. for compatibility, data() > would have to continue to return QChar* resp. uchar*, but more unified > access could be granted via array() (or wrappedData()) (returning QChar* > resp. QByte*) and optionally podArray() (or podData()) (returning > ushort* resp. uchar*).
Hi Ossi
I don't see the benefit of doing this, but I do see a lot more work to do.
The implementation of the functions dealing with the data-as-a-string are
completely different from the two classes. QString also has Unicode methods,
which QByteArray doesn't.
Converting from QString to QByteArray and vice-versa is completely different;
QString has methods to deal with Latin 1 strings whereas QByteArray does not.
Unless you're suggesting we make it possible to use UTF-8 QStrings...
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
