IMHO QByteArray is a much better candidate for that "position".
On 01/30/2015 01:25 AM, André Pönitz wrote:
> I would be willing to make an exception for QVector (and only that),
> this could, or even should, be a lightweight "fullsize" container.
> The portability reason carry less weight in this
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:32:13PM +0100, Felix morack wrote:
> Is there any reason for this? Why dont they use size_t like the STL and
> the rest of the world?
>
> It's 2015, people will increasingly bump into this limitation - i just
> did.
If you have 2^31 items or more in a container you *nee
Felix morack schreef op 29-1-2015 om 14:32:
> Hi,
>
>
> Qt containers use 'int' to refer to their size thus limiting their
> size to INT_MAX.
>
> Is there any reason for this? Why dont they use size_t like the STL
> and the rest of the world?
>
> It's 2015, people will increasingly bump into this
you can always use -1 as an error - even if signedness was an issue there
is still qint64.
2015-01-29 14:36 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Siekierda :
> On 29 January 2015 at 14:32, Felix morack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Qt containers use 'int' to refer to their size thus limiting their size
> to
> > INT_MAX
On 29 January 2015 at 14:32, Felix morack wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Qt containers use 'int' to refer to their size thus limiting their size to
> INT_MAX.
>
> Is there any reason for this? Why dont they use size_t like the STL and the
> rest of the world?
Basically this is so that -1 can be used as error
Hi,
Qt containers use 'int' to refer to their size thus limiting their size to
INT_MAX.
Is there any reason for this? Why dont they use size_t like the STL and the
rest of the world?
It's 2015, people will increasingly bump into this limitation - i just did.
I very much prefer QTL over STL for
