On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:43:18AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 11:58:15, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > > 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? > > What's the point of providing a minimalistic solution for cookies which just > respects the original Netscape spec and the RFC? > > Both have the same answer: it depends on how well it deals with the real > world. > the analogy is entirely bogus. the thresholds for usefulness and the user's ability to manipulate the input into something the qt code can work with are entirely different.
> > 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. > > QLibraryInfo is not about policy, either. It's just reporting what Qt's > settings are. > it's reporting our installation directory layout policy. unfortunately, that policy (which is basically FHS) doesn't match the ideal layout of mac os bundles at all. also, the implementation sucks. but that's a different discussion. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
