Op 04/07/2016 om 08:41 schreef Thiago Macieira:
On segunda-feira, 4 de julho de 2016 08:14:21 PDT Julien Blanc wrote:
Following Stephen Kelly’s mails, I’m convinced that instead of wrapping
stl containers, implementing a free function qIsEmpty is less work and
addresses all your readability concerns.
But it is uglier
Actually, I disagree with that. As someone who has come to appreciate
STL after growing up in the Qt world, I think that memberfunctions are
over-used. Emptyness is a concept that can be applied to many objects,
and it would be nice if I don't need a different function for all of
them. The problem with implementing things in a member function is that
the implementation will be specific for that class only, even if it did
not really have to be. You end up re-creating algorithms for no good
reason. And yes, that mistake has been made in the standard libraries as
well.
Note that there is work going on by Bjarne S. on a universal calling
conventions. As in: making calling a free function on an object and
calling a member function on that object to be interchangeble in syntax.
and does not help with .append() for .push_back().
Why not? You could do the same thing there if you prefer.
append(Container c, T item) can be made to work for both STL and Qt
containers I think?
André
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
