On Monday 19 October 2015 07:14:55 Smith Martin wrote: > >The point I'm trying to make > >is that returning a non-owning copy means that something else must own the > >data. That's what goes against the library code policy. > > The library code policy is an one that has always made sense in the > pre-string_view world. But if string_view is being added to C++, don't we > have to add it to Qt? And if we add it to Qt, don't we have to support it > in all the Qt classes where it could improve performance?
I don't think that string_view makes a difference. The point is still the same: returning non-owning copies of data implies something else owns it. We haven't done that so far and I don't think string_view should change the policy. > > Won't internet-of-things developers want a library that fully supports > string_view? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
