On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:40 PM, André Pönitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Templating the whole code (and potentially even put everything into the
> header because "someone perhaps might want QStringBase<float>" at some
> time) looks significantly less interesting to me, especially as a simple
> "typedef QStringBase<QChar> QString;" would break all existing code that
> has forward declarations of QString and therefore the "try hard to stay
> source compatible" promise.
It's still possible to be templating the whole thing. For the type
definition I would prefer
class QString : public QStringBase<QChar> {
// move along now, nothing to see here
};
over a typedef nine times out of ten for the reason you stated before.
And also the one that followed:
> I also _do_ like the fact that a QByteArray is reported as
>
> QByteArray
>
> by the usual suspects and not something similar to
>
> std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >
Cheers,
Frans
_______________________________________________
Qt5-feedback mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
