> From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > On terça-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2012 09.59.49, Marc Mutz wrote: >> A tangential question: should QRect be QBasicRect<int> (in which case > it >> would probably have a class invariant of right()-left()==width() instead >> of width()-1 as now. If there is a plan to move to CRect semantics (not >> sure I'd like that), then keeping QRect and using QRectI = > QBasicRect<int> >> could do the trick. > > QRect must have the same semantics as it has today. Whether we want to add a > *second* rectangle class with slightly different semantics, I'll leave up to > the implementor. > > I'd rather it were part of the template. That means whoever is implementing > this template needs to add some magic for the logic for integers to be > different from the logic from FP.
Perhaps a template is not the best option? Perhaps an abstract/virtual class that is derived from for the various classes would be better? Each class could then have its own internal data instead. Yes, it would mean a little more duplication in the code; but it would allow for the specialization of each class to its type. $0.02 Ben _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
