On Sat, 2 Dec 2017, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > 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.
And another thing: be properly documented in a way that people who are not CS phd's can understand. std completely and utterly fails in that. Parts of Qt's docs are bad enough, but there's nothing in cppreference.com that would pass muster for my gsoc students. -- Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
