Hi Lars, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:03 AM, <lars.kn...@nokia.com> wrote: > 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 >
I thought we were agreeing upon deprecating qreal (i.e leave it as-is) and use float and double explicitly inside Qt. At least, that's what I +1d for :) The patch above changes qreal and doesn't deprecate it. Girish _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
