On 2 December 2017 at 18:48, Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> wrote: > If that analyis were true, you'd need to explain why it is, then, that the > Qt containers now have more or less the same API as std ones, when in Qt 1 > they were very different. And why I keep needing to fight off QOptional. .. > And, c'mon, std::optional's API is just not going to be topped by QOptional. > What should they do? snake_case vs. camelCase? That's what we need to invest > several man-days of development work in, to rename the functions and stick a > Q in front of the class name?
There's one thing that a QOptional could do that std::optional can't: be available for all Qt users in a time span of a couple of months. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
