On Tuesday 10 February 2015 15:33:12 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Tuesday 10 February 2015 23:17:21 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > > Maybe with C++11 we don't need QString that much anymore. Use std::string > > with UTF8 and std::u32string for UCS4. > > > > For Qt6 it would be worth considering how many of our classes still makes > > sense. Those we want CoW semantics on would make sense, but if we don't > > really want that on strings, maybe every framework having its own string > > class is finally obsolete in C++? > > Eh... have you tried to convert a UTF-8 or UTF-16 or UCS-4 string to the > locale's narrow character set without using QString?
with std::ctype::tonarrow? > Have you tried to convert a number to string? You need C++14 to do that > reasonably, since std::to_string didn't exist in C++11. std::to_string is part of C++11. > How about the reverse? The only way to do that is sscanf or > std::istringstream. std::stoi > Have you tried to uppercase or lowercase a string using only the Standard > Library? std::ctype::toupper And if you think they are not pretty because they are not using camel case, we can still have in Qt functions like qToUpper and qToLower or QTextCodec > We may want to have this discussion for QVector vs std::vector. For QString > and QByteArray, there's no discussion: they stay, period. I understand that we are used to the convenience of the API of QString, but it is still a question of taste at this point. And not using the standard library type is a problem when it comes to integrate with others. If we break source compatibility and ABI consideration to accept std::vector, then why not std::string and related? -- Olivier Woboq - Qt services and support - http://woboq.com - http://code.woboq.org _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development