> On Jan 19, 2016, at 16:09, Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Each and every developer that uses Qt uses the fact that Qt containers are
cheap to “copy"
class A
{
public:
QVector<B> something() const;
private:
QVector<B> m_something;
};
QVector<B> A::something() const
{
return m_something;
}
Br, Eike
> 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
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
