On Monday 17 April 2017 00:59:55 Thiago Macieira wrote: > Em domingo, 16 de abril de 2017, às 15:16:54 PDT, Mark Gaiser escreveu: > > Ohh, that's great! > > > > > > > > One question. Would it be possible and sane to - by default - provide > > it as the patch implements it there, but with the addition of a define > > that can influence the behavior of the iterators? > > Most llikely no. Just look at the problem that QT_STRICT_ITERATORS causes. > We shouldn't make the same mistake again.
The problem with QT_STRICT_ITERATORS is _not_ that they are changing begin() and end(), but that a) classes that shouldn't be (non-polymorphic ones), are exported, thus breaking patterns that are deeply ingrained in C++ developers (inline function no longer are inline, e.g.) and b) that classes that shouldn't be (non-polymorphic ones with public dtor), are inherited. _These_ are the things that need fixing, not QT_STRICT_ITERATORS, or a hypothetical QT_STL_COMPATIBLE_ITERSTORS, even though I consider the former, too, a kludge. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development