On quarta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2017 12:03:27 PDT André Somers wrote: > 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.
That doesn't allow implementing indexOf() that searches from a position from the end. It's not just failure modes. So, no, even with a redesign we'd stick with signed. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
