>I disagree that an easy-to-use class has any business >providing completly opposing semantics for QList<double>, simply based on >whether you compile for 64-bits or 32.
It doesn't, but it doesn't make QList less easy to use either. ________________________________________ From: m...@kdab.com <m...@kdab.com> on behalf of Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 1:23 PM To: Smith Martin Cc: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Question about QCoreApplicationData::*_libpaths On Tuesday 19 January 2016 11:44:44 Smith Martin wrote: > Marc, you are still conflating optimal runtime efficiency with algorithmic > correctness. QList is easy to use correctly in algorithms. It is almost > hard to make a mistake. That is all "easy to use" means. It doesn't mean > "easy to use while achieving optimal runtime efficiency." See my reply to Harri. I disagree that an easy-to-use class has any business providing completly opposing semantics for QList<double>, simply based on whether you compile for 64-bits or 32. -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
