On Tuesday, 12 May 2020 09:34:40 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > On 2020-05-12 11:31, Jaroslaw Kobus wrote: > > So, just an idea: instead of repeating the common API part in QString > > and QStringView, what about making it one common? E.g. what about: > > - deriving QString from QStringView (and adding mutator API) > > or (maybe even better): > > - aggregating QStringView object as a part of QString API and giving > > > accesor for it, like: > Vetoed. Over my dead body™. No inheriting of non-polymorphic types from > each other. What we have is static polymorphism, and that's what we > should continue to have.
Agreed, but also because many of the methods in QStringView are not applicable to QString. QStringView::mid(), for example, returns QStringView, but QString::mid() returns QString. QString is neither a specialisation nor a broadening of QStringView. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
