Abecasis Joao wrote: > What's the porting effort for applications that use and depend on qreal?
The effort depends mainly on whether there will be a way to have a "double" incarnation of the "coordinate classes". _If_ there is a *D set (e.g. the proposed thin wrapper around a *Base<T> then the porting effort would be limited. I'd even call it "acceptable". If there is _no_ way to use the coordinate class with doubles the effort will be significant as the applications would essentially have to create the *D classes themselves, or find a substitute outside Qt. Implementing e.g. QPolygon::intersected() on your own is no fun. > The bigger porting effort doesn't come from the disappearance of qreal > itselft, but from changing Qt itself to not use it as users will no longer > be able to assume QRectF and whatnot use double on their platform. > And no one seems to be against that. I am not sure I parse that correctly. But to re-iterate: The main problem is is the disappearance of the "double" instances, no matter how they are called. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
