On 2015-02-10 19:44, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Tuesday 10 February 2015 19:07:09 Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> Heh. That reminds me, when will Qt classes get emplace methods? > > I added those methods to my local refactor of QVector, but.. > >> Or the ability to accept movable-but-not-copyable types? > > ... they aren't useful because we'll never accept movable-but-not-copyable > objects. An implicitly shared container implies a copyable contained object.
Wouldn't you just disable sharing (and indeed, copying the container at all) if the type is non-copyable? (Isn't this what happens with std::vector? I'd have to think yes...) >> (Something else to consider for Qt 6 would be fixing the index types to >> be size_t instead of int. Assuming we don't just drop the classes.) > > For QVector, we might have to switch to qint64 or to qintptr or some other > name for a *signed* integer type. If it has to be signed, ssize_t (okay, same as qintptr I guess, so really I'm just voting against an always-64-bit type) would seem preferable. (Why does it need to be signed? For methods that return 'not found' I'd expect the all-1's value, a la std::string. Where do you actually need a negative *value*, e.g. -N, not just -1?) -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development