On Tuesday 21 July 2015 19:11:42 Bubke Marco wrote: > Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > > > On Tuesday 21 July 2015 16:14:18 Bubke Marco wrote: > > > Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > Or like QString and QByteArray will be in Qt 6. > > > > > > > > > > Are these still implicitly shared? > > > > > > > > Yes, in large mode. In small string/array mode, they wouldn't share, > > > > of course. > > > > > > What about the conversion of std::vector to QVector and back. Do we get > > > zero copy conversion? > > > > Can't be done. > > What about wrapping QVector around std::vector. In that case std::vector > could be used in the internal implementation and application code. > Interface would be still using QVector. Many developers I met who rejected > Qt cited the argument what Qt is a closed island and not very operable > with code which is using the standard library. What have made Qt > productive 20 years ago is maybe not a good advice for the future.
Wether you use std::vector or QVector or QVarLengthArray doesn't really matter. What matters is that APIs are not formulated in terms of QVector or std::vector, but in terms of std::array_view. -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development