On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:41:46AM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> Il 28/04/20 21:45, Matthew Woehlke ha scritto:
> > > * QList gets adapted so that its internal array allocates 3 *
> > > sizeof(void*) per element, so that e.g. Q6StringList won't require a
> > > per-item allocati
On 04/28/20 11:04, Kevin Kofler wrote:
QList and QVector should remain as they are in Qt 5.
But ... some developers are not able to understand the difference, so
we need to remove one class!!1!
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
André Pönitz wrote:
> [detailed analysis of QList]
> If such a container did not exist it would need to be invented.
Thanks for your analysis! This basically sums up what I have been arguing
all this time, and brings up actual numbers to confirm it.
QList and QVector should remain as they are in
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 12:25:32AM +0200, Jean-Michaël Celerier wrote:
>> As starters, there are 85 occurences of QList::takeFirst() in Qt
>> Creator source code. Replacing these with QVector replaces a O(1)
>> operation with an O(n) operation.
>
>Apologies if I'm wrong, but isn't Q
> As starters, there are 85 occurences of QList::takeFirst() in Qt Creator
source code. Replacing these with QVector replaces a O(1) operation
with an O(n) operation.
Apologies if I'm wrong, but isn't QList::erase (and anything derivative)
always O(N) ?
With a lower cost than std::vector for thing
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:13:26AM -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 25/04/2020 10.49, André Pönitz wrote:
> > We all know the story that began with
> >
> > "We knew for a long time that QList is not a good default
> > container, despite what the documentation claims. The problem
> >
