Op 04/07/2016 om 10:03 schreef Philippe:
Actually, I disagree with that. As someone who has come to appreciate
STL after growing up in the Qt world,
Exact opposite here: I learned STL from its early days, and could never
become at ease with its namings... and I started to breath with Qt
containers :)
I'm not saying the namings are good, and I still find snake_case ugly. I
dislike the use of abreviations, and yet, isEmpty() is way clearer than
empty(). But the principles are very sound, especially the use of named
algorithms over raw loops. Note that Qt has basicaly abandoned it's own
algorithm collection for the stl one. That's mostly a Good Thing IMHO,
though having your own collection of algorithms building on top of stl
good practice I think. STL is by no means complete; you're encouraged to
extend it. Defining a well-named free function to bridge the gap where
it improves things is one way of enhancing both: you enhance STL by
making it more readable to use, and you enhance Qt by embracing
well-tested algorithms and containers.
André
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
