> On Friday, 5 October 2018 08:35:10 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> Cons:
>>> Suppresses move construction as in
>>>QCborValue v = array[n];
>>> this still compiles, but passes through the copy constructor, not
>>> the move one. We cana add an extra move constructor for const
>>> QCborValue &&
> On 6 Oct 2018, at 00:47, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday, 5 October 2018 08:35:10 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Cons:
>> Suppresses move construction as in
>>QCborValue v = array[n];
>> this still compiles, but passes through the copy constructor, not the move
>> one. We cana add an
On Friday, 5 October 2018 08:35:10 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Cons:
> Suppresses move construction as in
> QCborValue v = array[n];
> this still compiles, but passes through the copy constructor, not the move
> one. We cana add an extra move constructor for const QCborValue && if
> necessary
Thiago Macieira (5 October 2018 17:35) asked me:
> Eddy: what happens in the new API if you write:
> const QCborArray array = { QCborArray{ 1 } };
> QCborValue v = array[0];
> v[0] = 2;
>
> Does that modify array?
No. It should only modify what v[0] reports, or a v.toArray()[0]
reports, aft
On Friday, 5 October 2018 04:25:05 PDT Edward Welbourne wrote:
> dev (5.13):
> QCborValue{Ref,}::operator[] added where missing
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/240042
>
> The first's const-ing and the second's padding are needed in 5.12 to let
> the last be backwards-compatible, when it lands.
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 04:16:24 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
>> This is exactly the kind of stuff I brought up at the contributors
>> summit. We should strive to at least be on par with QJson, but I’m
>> hoping we can also have a nice API for writing (something QJson
>> doesn’t easily facilitat
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 04:16:24 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of stuff I brought up at the contributors summit.
> We should strive to at least be on par with QJson, but I’m hoping we can
> also have a nice API for writing (something QJson doesn’t easily
> facilitate). A
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 03:25:54 PDT Sze Howe Koh wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
> > Any chance you can give it a go? Or someone else?
>
> I've installed the Qt 5.12 alpha for MSVC 2015 and started playing
> with the CBOR API.
>
> map["hello"] = foo; // ERROR C2593: Operator '[' is ambiguous
That's
> On 9 Sep 2018, at 12:25, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
>
> Hi Thiago,
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 at 01:51, Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, 17 August 2018 08:13:21 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
Now, looking at the code, I don't think it does work. I thought that
QCborValue::operator[]
Hi Thiago,
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 at 01:51, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday, 17 August 2018 08:13:21 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> > > Now, looking at the code, I don't think it does work. I thought that
> > > QCborValue::operator[] returned QCborValueRefs, but it doesn't. Adding a
> > > set of
Yes, this library is very cool and requires only c++11.
Best regards,
Mikhail
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 16:47, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2018, at 17:08, Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, 17 August 2018 02:50:32 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> >>> Unless someone can volunteer to t
On 17 Aug 2018, at 17:08, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday, 17 August 2018 02:50:32 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
>>> Unless someone can volunteer to test. I *think* my design is slightly
>>> better than QJsonValue, so the following should work:
>>>
>>> value[1]["hello"][32] = false;
>>
>> Tha
rpedoes"
unless I am sure they are targeting the right thing 😊
Cheers,
Arnaud
-Original Message-
From: Thiago Macieira
Sent: jeudi 16 août 2018 22:11
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] unified data model API in QtCore => thin wrapper
proposal
On Wednes
On Friday, 17 August 2018 08:13:21 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> > Now, looking at the code, I don't think it does work. I thought that
> > QCborValue::operator[] returned QCborValueRefs, but it doesn't. Adding a
> > set of non-const overloads returning QCborValueRef might be the trick.
> That would
> On 17 Aug 2018, at 17:08, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday, 17 August 2018 02:50:32 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
>>> Unless someone can volunteer to test. I *think* my design is slightly
>>> better than QJsonValue, so the following should work:
>>>
>>> value[1]["hello"][32] = false;
>>
>>
On Friday, 17 August 2018 02:50:32 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> > Unless someone can volunteer to test. I *think* my design is slightly
> > better than QJsonValue, so the following should work:
> >
> > value[1]["hello"][32] = false;
>
> That’s great news. I assume it’s also easy to convert from a
> On 16 Aug 2018, at 22:11, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 06:05:35 PDT Arnaud Clère wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thiago, did you decide on something regarding QCborValue in Qt5.12?
>
> Hello Arnaud, all
>
> No, I have not. I have not had the time to read your email yet and nor hav
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 06:05:35 PDT Arnaud Clère wrote:
> Hi,
> Thiago, did you decide on something regarding QCborValue in Qt5.12?
Hello Arnaud, all
No, I have not. I have not had the time to read your email yet and nor have I
had time to even test if the API I designed does what we discuss
Hi,
Thiago, did you decide on something regarding QCborValue in Qt5.12?
For structured traces, we have to deal with any user-defined data types so, we
can do with QCborValue, QJsonValue or QFoo too. Now, the value of exposing the
common backend of QJson and QCbor as a QFoo binary format is not c
19 matches
Mail list logo
