On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:01:04PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 09:55:02 -03 André Pönitz wrote: > > As far as I understand there's a perceived need to have "full" utf8 > > literals, and there's a need to have ASCII literals. First could be > > served by some QUtf8*, second by QAscii*, both additions, no need to > > change QLatin* semantics. > > ASCII = Latin1
bool = char ? circle = ellipse ? It's a subset, it is special enough to be called by its name. Especially if it has features (e.g. toUpper/toLower operating on single letters) that are not present in the larger set. The line of discussion here is - people (correctly, happily) use toUpper on (7-bit clean US-ASCII) data - ASCII is claimed to be identical to Latin1 - since it is identical it is superfluous to have both and ASCII is dropped - toUpper does not work per-char for Latin1 in corner cases - so it needs to be dropped "to avoid wrong use" In the end this deprives users from a useful tool in a scenario where it was perfectly fine to use. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
