On Thursday 16 February 2012 09:21:34 Girish Ramakrishnan wrote: > 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.
Can be done in another commit, One after the massive s/qreal/float/g in the code. If we really want that... (That will not make cherry picking to/from 4.8 patch easier.) _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
