Hi, În ziua de miercuri, 21 august 2019, la 00:12:59 EEST, Thiago Macieira a scris: > On Tuesday, 20 August 2019 08:56:06 PDT Bogdan Vatra via Development wrote: > > Isn't silly to have so many wrappers around a such a simple thing as > > > > strings? > > We all wish it were simple. If it were, we would have no need for so many > string classes, for Marc's email and even for SG16 (Unicode) to exist in the > C++ committee.
You didn't answered my questions :). The most important one is: can we have *A single* String class and *A* single sting wrapper for each UTF-X variant? Personally I'm not going to waste my time learning 10 sting wrappers and classes just to make some pico optimizations like: QString ext = QLatin1String("exe"); // it's terribly wrong and people which are doing this mistake must be stoned to death! QString ext = QStringLiteral("exe"); // it's so good and it will save the planet from extinction! // But QString ext1 = QLatin1String("exe") + ext; // it's ok // and QString ext = QStringLiteral("exe") + ext; // it's a abomination! // Even more QHash<QString, QString> test; test[QLatin1String("key1")] = QLatin1String("some text %1").arg(1); // wrong test[QStringLiteral("key1")] = QStringLiteral("some text %1").arg(1); // wrong again test[QLatin1String("key1")] = QStringLiteral("some text %1").arg(1); // still wrong test[QLatin1String("key1")] = QStringLiteral("some text %1").arg(1); // victory !!! Am I the only one which finds situations silly ? Of course there are more examples with the other String wrappers/functions in Qt, but I think is enough to show how crazy is the situation. Cheers, BogDan. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development