> > >>> > But it's standard and it is C++. > >> But (I think) the point was: what should have we used for the last > >> 10-15 years of QString? > > > > I could've been a bit clearer in my initial post, but I intended to know > > if there was currently any reason that justified having QString around > > instead of simply using what's already included in C++'s standard > > library. >
The thread has talked about historic reasons, including support of UTF-16, and historic non-standard availability of STL, how QString is copy-on-write (explicitly not allowed by std::string), and how "wide-string" is not UTF-16. These are rational, but since they are "historic", one could argue they avoid the central question of, "Why use QString going forward?" I *really* want to get back to "Item-Four", which was "QString expanded interface" where you can do things (parsing, etc.) that are not in the "std::string" interface. IMHO, the std::string interface is absolutely insufficient crap. Any implementation that crashes with the following: std::string my_string; my_string = NULL; // crash??!! ...those developers should be taken-out-back-and-shot. Their bodies burned. Their names to not be spoken again. IMHO, I would absolutely never use std::string: (1) Its interface is too minimal (insufficient) (2) Its implementation is limited (3) It does not support real-world-unicode use That's my venting because for over a decade I never understood why people thought std::string was an acceptable component. IMHO it's absolutely useless. And dangerous. I don't care if I'm the only one on the planet with my conclusion, but IMHO, std::string is absolutely unusable insufficient crap. If you remove QString, I'll just wrap the string-class-of-choice into a "MyString" class that is minimally acceptable to do what "std::string" should have done. ;-)) --charley
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
