Hi all,
Kindly reminder: According to schedule we should have Qt 5.10 feature freeze
after a week, see https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.10_Release. So it is time to do
remaining finalizations to 5.10 new features now and focus to bug fixing after
that. Please fill new features page now as well
(https://
Congratulations to Jesus. Approver rights have been set.
--
Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Timur
> Pocheptsov
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017 14:07
> To: Qt development mailing list
> Subject
Congratulations to Viktor. Approver rights have been granted.
--
Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Simon
> Hausmann
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017 13:25
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subjec
Congratulations to Denis. Approver rights have been granted.
--
Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+alexander.blasche=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of André
> Hartmann
> Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2017 08:36
> To: development@qt-project.org; qt-crea
Last call here because like I promised, here's a 17 minutes long
documentary on BB++ which now shows its internals:
https://youtu.be/GrNDYWyasxg
Regards,
-Phil
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailma
On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 15:35:15 PDT Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> Well, if fast lookup isn't necessary, then I guess such a "container" is
> not really needed, and one can simply implement it using a
> QLinkedList> (maybe with some added
> restrictions).
And that's what it should be (thou
>
>
> It's still a key-value store in which items are retrieved by key, which
> is sort of the definition of a "map". It just has inefficient look-up.
>
Right. Since this (fast lookup) is so ubiquitous amongst map like
containers, I thought this was expected from all associative containers.
If no
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 14:36:59 PDT Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> > > I'd expect to be able to use keys that do not define qHash or qLess.
> >
> > Why?
>
> My type key type may be or contain an opaque non-orderable type, which
> w
On 2017-07-31 17:36, Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
>> I'd expect to be able to use keys that do not define qHash or qLess.
>
> Why?
Why not?
>> Search would be O(n). So be it.
>
> Well it wouldn't be much of a "map" then, would it?
It's still a key-value store in which items are retrieved by key, which
On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 14:36:59 PDT Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> > I'd expect to be able to use keys that do not define qHash or qLess.
>
> Why?
My type key type may be or contain an opaque non-orderable type, which would
make implementing both qHash and qLess impossible. Right now, if
>
>
> I'd expect to be able to use keys that do not define qHash or qLess.
>
Why?
>
> Search would be O(n). So be it.
>
Well it wouldn't be much of a "map" then, would it? I see OrderedMap
similar to a QMap, just with a different key ordering scheme. So in that
way, constant time lookups would be
Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> For implicit sharing, I'll have to this instead when a non-const function
> is called for the first time on the copy. This will cause a penalty when
> calling such a function as the hash has to be repopulated with all entries
> (eg: calling remove on the copy will take linea
On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 13:36:49 PDT Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> > Maybe. I don't know how many would use it and whether it's worth spending
> > our
> > development time on it, though.
>
> It might be useful to a lazy programmer though, who doesn't want to
> implement it on his/her own :
>
>
> Maybe. I don't know how many would use it and whether it's worth spending
> our
> development time on it, though.
>
It might be useful to a lazy programmer though, who doesn't want to
implement it on his/her own :)
It's not really a fundamental container itself, but rather uses a QHash &
QLi
On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 11:59:54 PDT Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Thiago Macieira > wrote:
> >
> > On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 11:20:43 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > > (p.s. This thread should probably be on inter...@qt-project.org...)
> >
>
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 11:20:43 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > (p.s. This thread should probably be on inter...@qt-project.org...)
>
> Unless you're planning to submit this code to Qt itself, in which case you
> have to imp
>
>
> So... right now your copy ctor is O(N) and remove is O(1), correct?
>
Yes.
> Implicit sharing makes your copy ctor O(1) and detach() O(N). IOW,
> you've just deferred the copy cost until a non-const method is called.
> That's basically what COW does...
>
Yes I understand that. And people wi
On segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2017 11:20:43 PDT Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> (p.s. This thread should probably be on inter...@qt-project.org...)
Unless you're planning to submit this code to Qt itself, in which case you
have to implement the implicit sharing as Qt requires.
--
Thiago Macieira -
On 2017-07-31 13:11, Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> Right now, I'm detaching the linked list during copy-construction (and
> assignment). Detaching here means re-populating the LL with same entries
> and then storing the new LL iterator's in the hash.
>
> For implicit sharing, I'll have to this instead w
>
>
> Your OrderedMap should itself be implicitly shared and clone the linked
> list
> on detach.
>
Right now, I'm detaching the linked list during copy-construction (and
assignment). Detaching here means re-populating the LL with same entries
and then storing the new LL iterator's in the hash.
F
On Monday, 31 July 2017 00:07:35 PDT Joerg Bornemann wrote:
> Suppose you create a new feature in commit A for Qt 5.x. The commit
> message has a change log entry. After a while A has to be reverted. You
> won't have time to fix the issue properly for 5.x. The git history for
> 5.x still contains t
On mandag 31. juli 2017 13.24.57 CEST Laszlo Agocs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are we sure that the week before the 5.10 feature freeze date is really the
> best time to do this?
>
> Cheers,
> Laszlo
>
Hi,
Well, it is not the worst either. Currently, the integration count is quite
low, but the most im
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:07:35AM +0200, Jörg Bornemann wrote:
> Suppose you create a new feature in commit A for Qt 5.x. The commit
> message has a change log entry. After a while A has to be reverted. You
> won't have time to fix the issue properly for 5.x. The git history for
> 5.x still con
Hi,
Are we sure that the week before the 5.10 feature freeze date is really the
best time to do this?
Cheers,
Laszlo
-Original Message-
From: Development
[mailto:development-bounces+laszlo.agocs=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
Frederik Gladhorn
Sent: mandag 31. juli 2017 15.19
To:
Hi all,
this is mostly for your information. On Wednesday this week (most likely)
we're making changes to Coin, potentially leading to some interruptions in
integrations.
The longer version:
We've been working towards replacing the underlying virtualization layer in
our Continuous Integration
On 07/31/2017 07:12 AM, Phil Bouchard via Boost wrote:
On 07/30/2017 04:54 PM, Phil Bouchard via Boost wrote:
Like I promised, here's a 5 minutes long documentary on BB++:
https://youtu.be/vXmddU_FS30
FAQ:
"I will create a better and longer presentation this week but the goal
of the language
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:11:41 +0200
Friedemann Kleint wrote:
> have a look at https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/201164/ for the
> Perl script.
Are the two scripts competing or do they complement each other in some way?
Christian
___
Development m
Hi,
have a look at https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/201164/ for the
Perl script.
Friedemann
--
Friedemann Kleint
The Qt Company GmbH
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developme
Mandeep Sandhu wrote:
> However, due to the issue with implicit sharing & iterators, it's not
> possible for a trivial assignment operator & copy c'tor. Is there any way
> around it other than making a item-by-item copy of the linked list?
Your OrderedMap should itself be implicitly shared and clo
Joerg Bornemann (31 July 2017 09:07)
> Suppose you create a new feature in commit A for Qt 5.x. The commit
> message has a change log entry. After a while A has to be
> reverted. You won't have time to fix the issue properly for 5.x. The
> git history for 5.x still contains the change log entry -
Suppose you create a new feature in commit A for Qt 5.x. The commit
message has a change log entry. After a while A has to be reverted. You
won't have time to fix the issue properly for 5.x. The git history for
5.x still contains the change log entry - now erronously.
Is the script that create
31 matches
Mail list logo
