Marc Mutz wrote: > Judging from the comments on my blog post from 2010(!), when they hear > QList people first think std::list (ie. linked list). Then they see that > there's also a QLinkedList and start thinking that QList is something like > std::deque. And then, if they are lucky, they realise it isn't that, > either. Because both of those std containers guarantee stability of > references under appends, as does QList _by default_.
It's funny, because having learned C++ mostly together with Qt, I just see std::list and std::deque as terse and incomplete names, and so std::list is what I think is incorrectly named, not QList. :-) Qt would never approve a name like "deque" in an API review! Sure, Qt 3's QList was also a linked list, but I have internalized the Qt 4 changes by now. >> Everything else is a blatant API abuse. > > Tell that to the authors of QToolBox and QDataWidgetMapper (off the top of > my head). Better yet: put code where your mouth is and fix that blatant > API abuse. I'll be more than happy to give you a +2 on that one. Oh, there's code inside Qt that sits on references into containers? Ewww! >> undeprecate QtAlgorithms > > And this is where I stop taking you seriously, sorry. You can demand such > nonsense, but if you do, _do_ the work yourself. Go. Implement those 80+ > algorithms from the STL for Qt. Or play god deciding which are the ones > "no- one will ever need" or "should never use" - IYHO. I'd already be happy with those that were (are, actually) already there. I'd rather have 10-20 common algorithms with a convenient API than 80+ obscure ones that force me to use iterators (especially the boilerplate .begin() and .end() iterators that will be used in 99+% of the cases – copy&paste programming sucks). Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development