> On 12 May 2020, at 22:42, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > 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.
Agreed as well. Those are two separate classes, but they can share the implementation of many methods. Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
