On Tuesday 19 January 2016 14:33:46 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> wrote: > > I'd aggregate the std container instead of inheriting it, but yes, that's > > a good idea. I just wrote a mail suggesting essentially the same, only > > slower. > > But I'd have nothing against going all-in, either. > > We can't "suddenly" break CoW, though. Who's going to review the millions > of lines of code where copies where happily taken assuming they were cheap?
Who's reviewing the millions of lines of code where hidden detaches are happily incurred even though they are not cheap? I'd say that if you took copies in a tight loop, you'll notice and the profiler will find it for you. And the rest don't matter, or they will be found by Clazy. I doubt many people actively use the fact that Qt containers are cheap to copy. But yes, Qt API needs to be reviewed with an eye towards this. Then again, Non-Qt C++ would be horribly slow if copying containers was so prohibitly expensive. Thanks, Marc -- 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
