Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> Oh sorry, I've forgotten to add a reference:
>
> [1] https://yosefk.com/c++fqa/
If you go through the summary of complaints:
https://yosefk.com/c++fqa/defective.html
you will notice that some are not true or not relevant when you use Qt
rather than the STL, e.g.:
* "N
No, they should not.
C++ committee understands the problem of ugly iterators and it seems they have
a solution - ranges.
Why do you want to use qSort instead of std::ranges::sort?
QVector v;
qSort(v);
std::ranges::sort(v);
I don’t see any advantages of the qSort() here.
No more ugly begin/end
09.06.2019, 01:26, "Konstantin Tokarev" :
> 09.06.2019, 01:02, "Kevin Kofler" :
>> Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
>>> In other words, the advantages of keeping the Qt equivalents start to be
>>> (seriously) questioned. We're therefore left with the question of what
>>> to do with
09.06.2019, 01:02, "Kevin Kofler" :
> Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
>> In other words, the advantages of keeping the Qt equivalents start to be
>> (seriously) questioned. We're therefore left with the question of what
>> to do with these equivalents.
>>
>> * We could play the catch
André Pönitz wrote:
> I see that pattern, too. But now, instead putting the break between 3) and
> 4), the whole thing is killed, and everybody downstream has to do 1)-3)
> again, or put up with what the standard offers.
>
> And could prevent overextension by -x'ing the respective change on gerrit
Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> In other words, the advantages of keeping the Qt equivalents start to be
> (seriously) questioned. We're therefore left with the question of what
> to do with these equivalents.
>
> * We could play the catch-up game, but that requires a development
> inve
08.06.2019, 19:16, "Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development"
:
> On 05/06/2019 23:01, André Pönitz wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, some of the previous deprecations, e.g. the removal
>> of qalgorithm, triggered re-implementing the deprecated functionality
>> downstream, effectively shifting the burd
08.06.2019, 21:33, "André Pönitz" :
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 06:14:36PM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2019 23:01, André Pönitz wrote:
>> > As a matter of fact, some of the previous deprecations, e.g. the removal
>> > of qalgorithm, triggered re-implementing th
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 06:14:36PM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> On 05/06/2019 23:01, André Pönitz wrote:
> > As a matter of fact, some of the previous deprecations, e.g. the removal
> > of qalgorithm, triggered re-implementing the deprecated functionality
> > downstream, effec
I kept out of this for the longest time, especially because people have been
quoting my blog post, but I give up now.
On zaterdag 8 juni 2019 18:14:36 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
>
> Then, it comes a moment when "upstream" stuff has more and more
> advantages -- more speed (a
On 05/06/2019 23:01, André Pönitz wrote:
As a matter of fact, some of the previous deprecations, e.g. the removal
of qalgorithm, triggered re-implementing the deprecated functionality
downstream, effectively shifting the burden of doing (or, rather,
*keeping*) them once centrally to all users who
11 matches
Mail list logo
