Olivier Goffart wrote: > Jędrzej Nowacki wrote: > [...] > > > What is wrong with string -> int or bytearray -> int? > > > > At the very least, _implicit_ conversions should not lose data, > > i.e. a A a1; B b = a1; A a2 = b; round trip ideally should yield > > a1 == a2. > > > > If I am ready to give up information, I'd like to need to say so > > in the code explicitly. (And yes, part of the deed is done in the > > core language, but even there compilers start to nag about it.)
> André, QVariant conversions are not implicit, they are explicit. I am aware of that. I tried to answer the question of "What is wrong with string -> int or bytearray -> int". We admittedly left the original context here (and in other parts of the discussion), but the question was posed in context that I read an example of an conversion that one would always consider convenient to have, and I started with "At the very least, _implicit.." supposedly setting the context of the answer. Anyway. To summarize my position in the original context: QVariant is as it is. It is convenient at times, and it is already too convenient at times. "Easy type conversion" is a different use case than "Type agnostic storage". QVariant does a bit of both, only the second one has ever been useful _to me_, I have been bitten by the first. As there are typically also more direct ways to convert types than to pass through QVariant, I consider the possibility to do type conversion through QVariant a mis-feature, and adding even more conversion abilities would be a step into the wrong direction _for me_. This is a personal opinion. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
