On Monday 20. July 2015 14:53:04 Knoll Lars wrote: > Yes, I think pretty much everybody agrees that QList does not work as > advertised. In the ideal case it’s performance is about as good as a > QVector, in most other cases (with a few exceptions) it’s a lot worse. So > Marc is completely right that we should be using QVector by default in any > new code and in our implementations (as long as we don’t need QList > compatibility with existing API).
Thanks for clarifying. I would just like to have another clarification: How about new API that should return or take lists as parametter? Should we use QVector, or should we keep using QList for consistency. (As for example in https://codereview.qt-project.org/112105/ ) _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development