On Monday, 13 November 2023 09:38:43 PST Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
> I really do not want to miss yet another FF.
Given that this is an API that is going to stay with us for at least a decade,
I'd rather get it right than getting it soon.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT)
On Monday, 13 November 2023 09:15:10 PST Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> On 13.11.23 17:15, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 November 2023 01:34:08 PST Ivan Solovev via Development
wrote:
> > I don't think this minor thing is worth the hassle. It uglifies our API
> > for
> > little
Marc wrote:
> I think I speak for Ivan, too, if I say that we'd rather
> today than tomorrow see this stuff merged. The next FF is already
> approaching again.
Right! This now seems to be the only thing blocking the whole
chain, and I think Marc's proposal solves all the issues.
I really do not
On 13.11.23 17:15, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2023 01:34:08 PST Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
>> Thiago wrote:
>>> The problem is that QPartialOrdering::Unordered has been in our ABI since
>>> 6.1 and we can't change that any more.
>>
>> Well, Marc already suggested a
On Monday, 13 November 2023 01:34:08 PST Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
> Thiago wrote:
> > The problem is that QPartialOrdering::Unordered has been in our ABI since
> > 6.1 and we can't change that any more.
>
> Well, Marc already suggested a solution for this problem.
> Let's just
Thiago wrote:
> The problem is that QPartialOrdering::Unordered has been in our ABI since 6.1
> and we can't change that any more.
Well, Marc already suggested a solution for this problem.
Let's just introduce Qt::{strong,weak,partial}_ordering and deprecate
QPartialOrdering
in favor of the new
