On 3/23/21 9:25 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 23/03/2021 01.21, Tuukka Turunen wrote: >> Feedback on the Qt 6 API is valuable and we are very interested in it. >> Portability was one of the key design principles and we have avoided >> making changes when not needed. That said, there can surely >> be some items that are unnecessarily changed. > > Why are the QHash changes needed? The main outcome of that seems to be > encouraging people to use std::unordered_map instead and destroying > trust in Qt's API. > > Why is QList removed? (I don't mean the *name* "QList", I mean the > container with indirect storage and reference stability. It's useful, > and unlike QHash, there is no STL equivalent available.)
I always switched between std::deque and QList. So there is something available, but it's not a straight forward thing or logical by names. Honestly, C++'s standards committee got wrong the design and naming of std::list and std::deque since you cannot access random elements in std::list (and you should in a list) but you can in std::deque (and you shouldn't be able to in a deque). Yeah, I read their reasoning; but it doesn't fit how people things of those two things. Guess I'll have to dig in an port https://github.com/BenjamenMeyer/qtmd5gui to Qt5/6 to see the damage done. Honestly, I was hoping to be able to convert a number of utilities in https://github.com/vegastrike/Vega-Strike-Engine-Source from Gtk to Qt; but after reading this discussion any hope there is almost certainly down the drain. -- Ben Meyer Software Engineer bm_witn...@yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
