On quinta-feira, 5 de julho de 2012 10.44.52, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Thursday July 5 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On quarta-feira, 4 de julho de 2012 23.09.03, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > Any opinions either way?
> >
> > There are no plans to write any class to replace QFuture. However,
> > renaming
On Thursday July 5 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 4 de julho de 2012 23.09.03, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Any opinions either way?
>
> There are no plans to write any class to replace QFuture. However, renaming
> the class right now is close to impossible due to source-compatibility
> re
Hi,
On Thursday 05 July 2012 08:01:43 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 5 de julho de 2012 04.46.22, lorn.pot...@nokia.com wrote:
> > On 05/07/2012, at 2:16 PM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > There are no plans to write any class to replace QFuture. However,
> > > renaming
> > > the clas
On quinta-feira, 5 de julho de 2012 04.46.22, lorn.pot...@nokia.com wrote:
> On 05/07/2012, at 2:16 PM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > There are no plans to write any class to replace QFuture. However,
> > renaming
> > the class right now is close to impossible due to source-compatibility
> > requi
On quarta-feira, 4 de julho de 2012 23.09.03, Marc Mutz wrote:
> Any opinions either way?
There are no plans to write any class to replace QFuture. However, renaming
the class right now is close to impossible due to source-compatibility
requirements.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) inte
Hi,
When QtConcurrent was been moved out of QtCore, some of it stayed behind in
QtCore: QThreadPool, but not QFuture. I'm arguing here that QFuture should
stay in QtCore, or else be renamed to QtConcurrent::Future, to not impede
development in that area until Qt 6.
QFuture is currently very mu
