> 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