On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:17:02PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote:
> [...]
> The other reason was more profound and related to the deprecation of these
> APIs, meaning that in the huge majority of usages found was a form of
> algorithmic abuse. Should we offer APIs which facilitate bad coding
> practices?
<sarcasm>
Sure. And instead of having "the API facilitating bad coding"
gimmeList().toSet()
"we" now have the super-safe to use API
QSet(gimmeList().begin(), gimmeList().end());
</sarcasm>
Do I need to check gerrit where such I've seen such replacement attempt last
time?
Do I need to check gerrit where such replacement was actually integrated?
My firm stance here is that as long as "downstream" projects effectively
have to come up with wrappers around Qt, replacing removed functionality,
the removal was *WRONG*.
Andre'
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
