On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > Em domingo, 16 de abril de 2017, às 08:05:21 PDT, Mark Gaiser escreveu: >> That again makes me wonder, why did Qt diverge from that? > > We didn't diverge. We never had that. The Qt style predates the Standard > Library having relevance in Qt. When the first QHash-like class was added, it > was just like that.
With regards to QHash vs std::unordered_map, yes. But STL also has std::map which certainly predates Qt and also gives back an std::pair. > > Also remember that at the time, you wouldn't think of a Standard Library > associative container as such. It was just a sequential container that held a > std::pair, with some convenience functions for searching the first of the > pair. > Returning a pair was a consequence of that. I don't know if it was intentional > thinking, or it just happened. > >> And... if Qt plans to change it in Qt6? > > No, cannot due to source compatibility. Ever. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
