On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:25:34PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Em seg 12 maio 2014, às 12:27:46, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > > any a-priori transformations needed to make it actually work with random > > versioning schemes are highly specific, and should therefore be left to > > the user. arbitrary policies totally do not belong into a generic > > low-level class in qtcore. > > It's only random if we write the randomness (i.e., random sort). > > You meant arbitrary. That means we made a choice on what to do. That's what I > am proposing: we make our informed decision about what to do and then > document > it. > yes. and what is the added value of hard-coding arbitrary policies (and thereby restricting possible use cases) instead of providing a minimalistic solution (or two, one for semver and one for strings) and putting a few recipes for common schemes into the documentation?
policy in the classes was always considered a very un-qt thing. the one counterexample i can come up with is qlibraryinfo, and it is in fact a constant pita. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
