On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 17:48:19 +0100
Marc Mutz wrote:
> > 1) the std implementation varies with compiler vendors, each one with a
> > different set of bugs, unit tests and sometimes performance. While with
> > Qt, the implementation is more uniform. This to say, I feel more secure
> > using Qt impl
>>And, c'mon, std::optional's API is just not going to be topped by QOptional.
I don't know the QOptional plans (or no-plan), but as today, on the Mac,
the latest XCode 9.1 still does not provide std::optional.
With Qt, at least, when something is available, it is available in all
platforms, and
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 2 December 2017 at 18:48, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > If that analyis were true, you'd need to explain why it is, then, that the
> > Qt containers now have more or less the same API as std ones, when in Qt 1
> > they were very different. And why I keep n
On 2 December 2017 at 18:48, Marc Mutz wrote:
> If that analyis were true, you'd need to explain why it is, then, that the
> Qt containers now have more or less the same API as std ones, when in Qt 1
> they were very different. And why I keep needing to fight off QOptional.
..
> And, c'mon, std::o
On 2017-12-01 23:12, Philippe wrote:
it's existential for Qt to get off its own container classes.
I shall in the future extend that statement to anything that overlaps
with std.
Two points to keep in mind:
1) the std implementation varies with compiler vendors, each one with a
different set o
