On 04/06/2019 16.41, Mutz, Marc via Development wrote: > On 2019-06-03 11:26, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> == QSharedDataPointer / QExplicitlySharedDataPointer == >> >> I see no reason at all for removing those, quite to the contrary. They >> are very helpful for building refcounted classes (explicitly or >> implicitly shared). > > I'd still like to deprecate them. QSDP is issuing atomic operations on > each mutable access hurting code-gen, and produces surprises such as > https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=qt%2Fqtbase.git;a=commit;h=96dc9a19ae11ca140d681f0e2605b5f4b953e581 > or > https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=qt%2Fqtbase.git;a=commit;h=a2cdfd23d61c8dd3a346982caaf1e846e30513b0 > or > https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=qt%2Fqtbase.git;a=commit;h=188eea0eb47c499f70a60f573948d529089d93b1. > > QESDP has the bug that it doesn't propagate const. We could fix that, > but it would be SiC, too. So, my idea was to keep them both, deprecate > them, and use something much more cumbersome to use outside of Qt for > Qt's own classes. I'd also be ok with keeping a fixed QESDP, but QSDP > should go sooner rather than later.
As one of the users that would be affected by such a change... I want to go on record that I would be fine with *replacing* these... just as long as there *is a replacement*, and that replacement isn't "for Qt-internal use only". I don't mind porting my code, especially if there are notable improvements in doing so. I *do* mind suddenly having to reimplement something that Qt used to provide that doesn't have an STL replacement. (p.s. It would also be nice if Q_D and friends would also stop being private...) BTW, in qtExtensions, I have explicit QTE_D_SHARED / QTE_D_MUTABLE to differentiate getting a mutable d-pointer (which might detach) and an immutable one (which won't). m> How do you intend to address the problem that QHash/QMap are all but > unusable in C++11 ranged for loops, because of decltype(*it)? https://github.com/Kitware/qtextensions/blob/master/core/qtEnumerate.h WJFFM. The converse (always having to write `.second`, not to mention the *name* "second") has its own annoyances. In an ideal world, we could do something like: for (auto k : map | keys) ...and have optimal codegen. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
