I’ve had similar thoughts lately as well. I can see a few more reasons to keep QList as the name of the class:
(3) Less ambiguity with QVector(2/3/4)D (4) QList is the known type and the one promoted in our API so far, so no need for people to re-learn Qt (5) a lot less code churn for us and our users So I’m in favour of doing this and keeping QList as the name for the class. Cheers, Lars On 23 Apr 2020, at 09:43, Simon Hausmann <simon.hausm...@qt.io<mailto:simon.hausm...@qt.io>> wrote: Hi, In dev we've had QVector being an alias for QList for a while now. For the 6.0 release this particular topic (QList/QVector) suggests two goals (among others): (1) Use the same type throughout the public API of Qt. (2) Make it easy for our users to maintain a code base that works with Qt 5 and 6. In the light of those two goals, I think we should keep using QList as the type in the public API. I don't think we should do a search and replace activity and switch to QVector. In the light of that, I would like to propose simply deprecating QVector and stick to QList everywhere. What do you think? Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
