> On 16 Apr 2017, at 17:53, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > Em domingo, 16 de abril de 2017, às 08:05:21 PDT, Mark Gaiser escreveu: >> That again makes me wonder, why did Qt diverge from that? > > We didn't diverge. We never had that. The Qt style predates the Standard > Library having relevance in Qt. When the first QHash-like class was added, it > was just like that. > > Also remember that at the time, you wouldn't think of a Standard Library > associative container as such. It was just a sequential container that held a > std::pair, with some convenience functions for searching the first of the > pair. > Returning a pair was a consequence of that. I don't know if it was intentional > thinking, or it just happened. > >> And... if Qt plans to change it in Qt6? > > No, cannot due to source compatibility. Ever. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
Hi, Just in case, there’s a work in progress at https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/151511/ to add these "missing" iterators to QHash and QMap. Cheers, Samuel
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development