On 2016-01-20 17:43, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > This poses further questions down the line, such as whether it's "ok" > having an index API based on signed integers. (It is for convenience, it > is not for correctness, but I guess that's all the topic here, isn't it? > :))
As Thiago noted, C++ itself is moving *away* from size_t, even to using int in some cases. It's true, it would be nice if Qt (especially e.g. QByteArray) used ssize_t instead of int, but there are various strong reasons for using a signed integer rather than unsigned. (It makes 'did you find the index' checks much less obnoxious, it allows tail-based indexing, ...) > Qt containers are unsound for general-purpose storage. ...only if you use exceptions. Personally, I'm glad Qt *doesn't*. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
