On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 02:55:53PM +0200, Knoll Lars (Nokia-MP-Qt/Oslo) wrote: > Why would we want to add a wrapper for char's? > why again do we have a wrapper for ushort called QChar? after all, some global functions operating on ushort would do. ;)
> I don't see any added value of having a 'QByte' class/struct/typedef. > i do. code which is easily templateable for both. > And let's face it: I think it'll be a lot of work to unify the > implementations, and I am very uncertain what the added value would be > (apart from satisfying some definition of being cleaner). > one of the advantages of a unified codebase would be making an end to qbytearray constantly lagging behind qstring in api for no good reason. On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 04:10:49PM +0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > The implementation of the functions dealing with the data-as-a-string are > completely different from the two classes. > the what? > QString also has Unicode methods, which QByteArray doesn't. > my remark about data() alone is enough to see that there have to be specialized subclasses made from the template. and obviously, the qstring-specific functionality would stay in qstring as ever. > Unless you're suggesting we make it possible to use UTF-8 QStrings... > if you mean hybrid strings (bytearray + codec pointer), that's certainly an interesting topic, but i'm not too concerned about that now. _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
