On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:04 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> wrote:
> Well, one difference is that we don't _already_ have an implementation > of flat (unordered) maps to be replaced by a 3rd party library, and we > are finding lots of cases where this would be useful... > Fair point. We don't already have an implementation that solves systems, but I leave that to rest, it's not that important for this thread. But to play devil's advocate for a second - taking the stance that QVector, QList and friends should go away, isn't it better to *ask* that such a container goes into the STL and use that instead of boost? Or even just wait for it to materialize in the STL (eventually), i.e. basically do nothing? On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:02 PM André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: > I don't think that (non-)COW is a problem in the scenario under discussion. > It may, if eventually it's to be exposed as public class, that's why I brought it up. Otherwise I personally don't have any objection to (or argument against) a non-shared container.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
