On Tuesday 22 December 2009 10:53:51 Matthew Ayres wrote:
> To me, it looks as though STL is the conclusion here.
I'm fine with that. I will change everything in my code accordingly and stick
to STL iterators for the container-classes from now on.
bye
julian
signature.asc
Description: This is a
To me, it looks as though STL is the conclusion here.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:45 AM, P Zoltan wrote:
>
> So... what is the conclusion?
>
> java style: julian, me
> stl style: alan, matthew, lot of old code :D
>
> Helping question: do we want same style in all the codebase, or not? I'd
> s
So... what is the conclusion?
java style: julian, me
stl style: alan, matthew, lot of old code :D
Helping question: do we want same style in all the codebase, or not? I'd
say it would be nice to have a consistent style in the source code.
I've found only this about iterators in KDE
I personnaly prefer java-style and foreach when possible, but I'll be
happy either way ;-)
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Ayres
wrote:
> I'm just throwing in my vote for C++ STL style. It's how I learned,
> so it's what I find clearest.
>
> --
I'm just throwing in my vote for C++ STL style. It's how I learned,
so it's what I find clearest.
--
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
Julian Bäume wrote:
>> Sure, C++ is great for organizing stuff but it's HORRIBLE for
>> algorithms. For algorithms, I require a language that executes directly
>> instead of vertically (try debugging a STL call). I need to be able to
>> think in terms of register moves, pushes and pops, and of the
On Tuesday 08 December 2009 02:55:56 Alan Grimes wrote:
> Julian Bäume wrote:
> > That's why I think, the Qt API helps to write better code. I saw a
> > construct in the code, reading: "Cell **m_cell;" or something like that.
> > WTF? ;) This is not C, it's C++. Such expressions should really be
>
Julian Bäume wrote:
> That's why I think, the Qt API helps to write better code. I saw a construct
> in the code, reading: "Cell **m_cell;" or something like that. WTF? ;) This
> is
> not C, it's C++. Such expressions should really be avoided and I can't think
> of any example, where there is n
On Monday 07 December 2009 17:14:40 Alan Grimes wrote:
> Yeah, my vote is for the shortest code whenever possible. This has a
> number of advantages. However I also prefer STL wherever possible
> because it won't be changing in QT5...
:) Okay, the container-classes changed their api, slightly in Qt
On Monday 07 December 2009 21:49:11 P Zoltan wrote:
> > My votes for the record:
> > java-style iterators and foreach-macro, when possible
>
> +1, the STL style is not my favorite
So I guess, it's 2 vs 1 in favour of STL style, for now ;)
> foreach is something new for me, so I don't have a
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:35:03 +0100, Julian Bäume wrote:
> hi again,
> I want to have short input on which iterators to use. Qt provides both,
> STL-
> and JAVA-style iterators. Here an example:
> java-style:
> QStringListIterator it(route);
> QPointF p;
> p.setX(it.next().toDouble()
Yeah, my vote is for the shortest code whenever possible. This has a
number of advantages. However I also prefer STL wherever possible
because it won't be changing in QT5... That said, some of my conversions
to STL were ill advised. =(
--
DO NOT USE OBAMACARE.
DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE.
Powers are no
hi again,
I want to have short input on which iterators to use. Qt provides both, STL-
and JAVA-style iterators. Here an example:
java-style:
QStringListIterator it(route);
QPointF p;
p.setX(it.next().toDouble()*8);
p.setY(it.next().toDouble()*8);
moveTo( p );
while (it.has
13 matches
Mail list logo
