> On 14 Nov 2023, at 09:40, Marc Mutz via Development
> <development@qt-project.org> wrote:
>
> On 14.11.23 09:31, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> [...]
>> And then naming them Qt::partial_ordering is just consequent, because
>> users can reach ultimate SC by doing something like
>>
>> #ifdef __cpp_lib_three_way_comparison
>> using std::partial_ordering;
>> ~~~~
>> #else
>> using Qt::partial_ordering;
>> #endif
>>
>> ~~~ use unqualified partial_ordering ~~~
>
> This will also mean that in Qt 7 we can maintain 100% SC with Qt 6 by
> simply saying
>
> namespace Qt {
> using partial_ordering = std::partial_ordering;
> using weak_ordering = std::weak_ordering;
> using strong_ordering = std::strong_ordering;
> }
>
> Done.
I agree with Marc here.
It’s tempting to add some Qt::Ordering::Partial, but it only makes things
harder in the not-so-long run. From C++ 23 on, we can expect
std::partial/weak/strong_ordering to become as ubiquitous as “true” and
“false”. We should not invent our own.
Adding Qt::snake_case interims that are BC with std, with conversion from/to
QPartialOrdering, is the right thing to do.
Volker
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
