(re-arranged) On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:55:33PM +0200, Philippe wrote: > AlexV Malyushytskyy <alexmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This question appears on the mailing lists since Qt 3 at least . > > > > At one point I was disappointed with having signed int restriction, but > > then I decided that QT containers are just a convenience classes which > > are designed to work with either widgets or data of limited size > > displayed by that widgets. > > > > If guaranteed performance is needed you should use STL anyway. I > > could easily guess 99.9% of Qt programmers don't need 64 bit > > containers... Qt containers are far more than "just convenience" > > classes. > > STL is first of all an interface and there are various implementations, > hence your remark about performances does not make sense.
Alex's remark makes a lot of sense. QVector provides not only a lot of "priceless" convenience, but also some features like implicit sharing which do come with a "price tag". The focus areas of QVector and std::vector are not the same, so there's no uniform one-is-better-than-the-other. Amdre' _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
