On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:44:40AM +, Frederik Gladhorn wrote:
> On tirsdag 11. juni 2019 09:48:00 CEST Lars Knoll wrote:
> > > On 11 Jun 2019, at 09:35, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11.06.19 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
> > >
> > >> So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our
On tirsdag 11. juni 2019 09:48:00 CEST Lars Knoll wrote:
> > On 11 Jun 2019, at 09:35, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> >
> > On 11.06.19 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
> >
> >> So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our users? Q_FOREACH is
> >> a macro and it doesn’t really cost us anything to kee
Mutz, Marc via Development wrote:
> This is a bit like the Fridays for Future generation clash: the new
> developer asks "why is there Q_FOREACH if there's ranged-for?" and the
> older devs answer: "because I wants my SUV, erhm, I mean Q_FOREACH".
The difference is that Q_FOREACH does not destroy
On 2019-06-12 08:23, Philippe wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:54:29 +0200
Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos via Development
wrote:
Whenever Qt is adding a new feature there's a teachability issue that
needs to be handled. Any duplication with the C++ standard adds
cognitive load to students.
One could dis
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:54:29 +0200
Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos via Development wrote:
> Whenever Qt is adding a new feature there's a teachability issue that
> needs to be handled. Any duplication with the C++ standard adds
> cognitive load to students.
> One could dismiss that by saying just use the
On Tuesday, 11 June 2019 22:54:29 PDT Nicolas Arnaud-Cormos via Development
wrote:
> Whenever Qt is adding a new feature there's a teachability issue that
> needs to be handled. Any duplication with the C++ standard adds
> cognitive load to students.
Understood, but that will not stop us from add
On 11/06/2019 21:51, André Pönitz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:47:12PM +0200, Mutz, Marc via Development wrote:
On 2019-06-11 09:48, Lars Knoll wrote:
On 11 Jun 2019, at 09:35, Olivier Goffart wrote:
On 11.06.19 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:47:12PM +0200, Mutz, Marc via Development wrote:
> On 2019-06-11 09:48, Lars Knoll wrote:
> > > On 11 Jun 2019, at 09:35, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11.06.19 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
> > > > So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our users?
> > > >
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:49:11AM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 11/06/2019 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
> > So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our users? Q_FOREACH is
> > a macro and it doesn’t really cost us anything to keep it around. Yes, it
> > has issues with non Qt containe
On 2019-06-11 09:48, Lars Knoll wrote:
On 11 Jun 2019, at 09:35, Olivier Goffart wrote:
On 11.06.19 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our users?
Q_FOREACH is a macro and it doesn’t really cost us anything to keep
it around. Yes, it has issues with non
On 11/06/2019 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our users? Q_FOREACH is a
macro and it doesn’t really cost us anything to keep it around. Yes, it has
issues with non Qt containers and I wouldn’t recommend it for any new code.
In fact, I wasn't proposin
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 09:35, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>
> On 11.06.19 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
>> So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our users? Q_FOREACH is a
>> macro and it doesn’t really cost us anything to keep it around. Yes, it has
>> issues with non Qt containers and I wouldn
10.06.2019, 14:48, "Giuseppe D'Angelo" :
> (Changing the subject to be on topic)
>
> On 10/06/2019 13:27, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>> At the cost of saying for the 100th time, before this stuff ends up
>>> indexed by Google: you can port away from Q_FOREACH in an automated way
>>> only in tr
On 11.06.19 09:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
So, is removing it worth all the hassle to us and our users? Q_FOREACH is a
macro and it doesn’t really cost us anything to keep it around. Yes, it has
issues with non Qt containers and I wouldn’t recommend it for any new code. But
maybe we could simply fix
> On 10 Jun 2019, at 13:48, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>
> (Changing the subject to be on topic)
>
> On 10/06/2019 13:27, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>> At the cost of saying for the 100th time, before this stuff ends up
>>> indexed by Google: you can port away from Q_FOREACH in
(Changing the subject to be on topic)
On 10/06/2019 13:27, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
At the cost of saying for the 100th time, before this stuff ends up
indexed by Google: you can port away from Q_FOREACH in an automated way
only in trivial cases.*NOT* in the general case.
How is one supposed
16 matches
Mail list logo
