On Thursday, 25 March 2021 07:40:00 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Wow, you *totally* misunderstood that. > > QList in Qt5 is mostly fine (and there's always QVector if needed). > > Qt 6 got rid of a useful container type.
I didn't misunderstand you. I'm disputing your assertions. QList in Qt 5 was *not* mostly fine. It was mostly wrong and would have become even more wrong in Qt 6. QStringList would have been wholly bad because sizeof(QString) == 3 * sizeof(void*). And QList's design in trying to guess what the best storage strategy was flawed, leading to silent binary incompatibilities and possible data loss if you used Q_DECLARE_TYPEINFO to make your type use QList efficiently. But even flawed designs can have some uses, I agree. It's just not strong enough to warrant being the default container type for Qt and being called QList. The *name* had to be freed. As I said, we can bring back the container, in a fixed form. It will most definitely not have the hybrid model where it tries to guess which way is best (that was the design flaw). If you want stability of references by way of pointers, use this; if you don't care, use QList. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
