Am 24.04.2020 um 09:22 schrieb Lars Knoll:
e "vector is a silly name from a mathematical standpoint" argument is valid,
but vector is an established term in C++ world. Sorry, that ship has sailed.
I am also in favor of proposal 2 or 3. I think deprecating either QList or
QVector without any big advantage for the user will just make porting form Qt5
to Qt6 needlessly harder.
Even inside Qt we are struggling to keep up with deprecation warnings (Thanks to Friedemann for
fixing these). I am pretty sure Creator does have the same "problem". Extrapolating that
from "just us" to the broader audience we are hopefully targetting, it looks like lots of
users/applications will be hit by these warnings and it will mean (lots of?) work for them.
I do agree that we shouldn’t deprecate neither name, as that would just make
moving from 5 to 6 harder. The unification of the classes should help simplify
things.
But we need to have a consistent message around which name is the preferred one
and used in Qt’s own API and documentation. Having a QList in one method and a
QVector in the next one would only be confusing to our users. So IMO this
thread should mainly be about deciding what the default name for this container
is in our documentation and API in Qt 6.
Since you tell everyone since ages that QList should not be used (it's
in the documentation since 5.6:
https://doc-snapshots.qt.io/qt5-5.9/qlist.html#details , Marc wrote
about not using QList in 2010 ) and the discrepancy between std::list
and QList I don't understand what's to be discussed here at all.
Christian
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
