Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 17:47:59, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:43:18AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 11:58:15, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > > > 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. > > the analogy is entirely bogus. the thresholds for usefulness and the > user's ability to manipulate the input into something the qt code can > work with are entirely different.
We disagree. > > > 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. > > it's reporting our installation directory layout policy. unfortunately, > that policy (which is basically FHS) doesn't match the ideal layout of > mac os bundles at all. > also, the implementation sucks. but that's a different discussion. QLibraryInfo is *reporting* what was configured. The policy / semantic decision was made at configure time. If we change the way we lay out our files by changing configure, QLibraryInfo will report it. -- 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
