Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 11:58:15, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:25:34PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Em seg 12 maio 2014, às 12:27:46, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > > > any a-priori transformations needed to make it actually work with random > > > versioning schemes are highly specific, and should therefore be left to > > > the user. arbitrary policies totally do not belong into a generic > > > low-level class in qtcore. > > > > It's only random if we write the randomness (i.e., random sort). > > > > You meant arbitrary. That means we made a choice on what to do. That's > > what I am proposing: we make our informed decision about what to do and > > then document it. > > yes. and what is the added value of hard-coding arbitrary policies (and > thereby restricting possible use cases) instead of providing a > minimalistic solution (or two, one for semver and one for strings) and > putting a few recipes for common schemes into the documentation?
What's the point of providing a minimalistic solution for cookies which just respects the original Netscape spec and the RFC? Both have the same answer: it depends on how well it deals with the real world. > policy in the classes was always considered a very un-qt thing. the one > counterexample i can come up with is qlibraryinfo, and it is in fact a > constant pita. QLibraryInfo is not about policy, either. It's just reporting what Qt's settings are. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
