On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:25:37PM +0200, Knoll Lars (Nokia-MP-Qt/Oslo) wrote: > On 10/17/11 7:33 PM, "ext Oswald Buddenhagen" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >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. > > At the cost of people having to deal with another class where a primitive > type is perfectly fine? > well, yes. it's consistent. for that matter, i would be all for turning qchar into a collection of static functions operating on ushort. but either option is not doable for qt5 anyway, because a change either way would be massively source-incompatible for low-level code. so i'll just add *podData() functions to both classes for the time being.
> Not even to mention the drawbacks in terms of ABI. > Classes are not passed in registers to functions, primitive types are. > in this case https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/merge_requests/69 is plain bogus. and the previous endeavours to get rid of QLatin1String const refs. _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
