On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:05:45PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On sexta-feira, 1 de julho de 2016 22:52:24 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > > > I had to look up the definition of readHeaders in the review and note that > > > it was a std::deque, not a Qt container. > > > > STL was standardized 18 years ago, I think it should be enough to get used > > to empty(). > > Qt API conventions predate the Standard Library standardisation. Qt's style > exists because -- quite by definition -- Qt developers think their style is > better. Moreover, Qt is recognised for having a nice, easy-to-learn API, > whereas the C++ Standard Library meets quite often the exact opposite > reaction > (yes, anecdotal evidence).
I second this. Qt API is highly praised, for a good reason. It is one of the big assets of Qt. IMHO the compromise of subclassing STL stuff inside the QtStl namespace seems like a good deal - it may require some effort, but we get to keep a clean API. I would even go as far as saying this is better than simply allowing unrestricted STL code into Qt source code, because unless we rename (ruin) some method signatures in the Qt API, we would end up with the sort of inconsistent source code demonstrated by Thiago's example, which I judge to be the worst-case scenario. Of course, all this assumes the introduction of a QtStl namespace to be a feasible task. Whether it really is I cannot say. -- Rafael Roquetto | rafael.roque...@kdab.com | Software Engineer Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company Tel. Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090, USA +1-866-777-KDAB(5322) KDAB - Qt Experts
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
