On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:07:44PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Em qui 20 fev 2014, às 19:56:42, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
what are you planning to do?
This is the first step: remove setSharable so we have one fewer state to
check
during ref up down. Keeping isSharedWith is no
On Thursday 20 February 2014 08:32:54 Thiago Macieira wrote:
Please raise your hand if you knew we had that feature.
I'm sure you know that COW implementations that hand out references to shared
state need the sharable flag[1]. So are we talking about removing the public
part of the API?
Em sex 21 fev 2014, às 16:49:39, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
ah, you are thinking qt 6 here.
Yes. I'd rather do the deprecation as soon as possible so we can have a
smoother transition when we come to it.
Obviously, if the d-pointer is null, neither the pointer to the data nor
the size
Em sex 21 fev 2014, às 20:11:20, Marc Mutz escreveu:
On Thursday 20 February 2014 08:32:54 Thiago Macieira wrote:
Please raise your hand if you knew we had that feature.
I'm sure you know that COW implementations that hand out references to
shared state need the sharable flag[1]. So are we
Em qui 20 fev 2014, às 16:45:19, Tony Van Eerd escreveu:
-Original Message-
On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
Subject: [Development] RFC: Deprecating setSharable / isSharable in our
containers and QString
... and removing them in Qt 6
Please raise your hand if you knew we had
I agree on detach(): you can easily trigger a detach() by calling data().
Well, as long as you ensure that your object is not const.
I wouldn't get rid of detach() just because data() can do the same thing. If
it is useful, I'd rather use the proper name for it.
The question is whether it
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 09:12:29AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
The others are obscure indeed. As part of my efforts, I want to make QString
/
QByteArray / QVector keep a null d pointer for anything that doesn't require
deallocation and reference counting -- that is, everything that is a
Em qui 20 fev 2014, às 19:56:42, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
what are you planning to do?
This is the first step: remove setSharable so we have one fewer state to check
during ref up down. Keeping isSharedWith is no problem, as it doesn't affect
the refcounting.
The second step will be to
