On 2/16/12 12:16 PM, "ext Giuseppe D'Angelo" <dange...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 15 February 2012 22:56, Sean Harmer <s...@theharmers.co.uk> wrote: >> On 15/02/2012 11:53, andre.poen...@nokia.com wrote: >>> Anyway. It's probably better to go for any kind of uniformity. If >>>that's single precision, it should be made clear that QPolygonF/QRectF >>>are not meant for applications needing "polygons" in general. Maybe one >>>should consider adding some QPolygonD/QRectD/... later to get the >>>functionality back. Until these exist, it might be worthwhile to keep >>>the (then unconditional) typedef though, to allow easy creation of >>>custom builds of Qt with double precision coordinates. >> >> Why not make these classes into templates and have typedefs for the >> float and double cases? It always confused me why QVector<n>D mixed >> qreals and floats. > >I agree, although typedefs will unfortunately break all forward >declarations... That would break quite a bit of code, so I'm against it. It's not a big deal to simply add the QRectD, etc. types if required. In any case, here's the patch to close the issue: http://codereview.qt-project.org/16551 Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
