Op 01/11/2017 om 16:46 schreef Thiago Macieira: > On quarta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2017 08:25:01 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote: >>> No, not really, since it's already limited to half the full VM space. No >>> object can be larger than that. Using unsigned is unnecessary. >> Using unsigned for size types is crucial in preventing signed overflow in >> pathological cases. > Using signed for size types is crucial because the API expects to be able to > count backwards from the end and needs to report failure in other situations. > So unsigned is simply ruled out. I think we're stuck with that API indeed, but _if_ we had the freedom to re-design it, it would not be my choice to do it this way. I'd sooner choose for an explicit flag for the first case, and something like std::optional as a return value to handle the error-reporting case. I'd find that more explicit that using negative indices. However, I guess we cannot possibly break API that badly in Qt 6, so doing something like that is out of the question.
André _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
