On Thursday, 14 May 2020 04:20:43 PDT Иван Комиссаров wrote: > I don’t see the problem here. Ranges library operates on views only, so > there *should be* (I am just not aware of it’s name) the type that > corresponds to the «forward access iterator» (well, in case of QSet, that > would be bidirectional but not random access iterator) range. > > If there’s no such view, it’s quite easy to implement it - it’s simply a > pair of iterators.
You're missing the point. I want you to implement it without changing your return type. Or, in different words: choose one return type for your non-inline function that you can be sure to support for the next 7 years, regardless of internal modifications to your data store. > The disadvantage here is that such a view doesn’t gives the same flexibility > as std::span does. i.e. it is still not possible to replace QSet with > std::unordered_set, so we don’t have much gain compared to returning QSet / > const QSet &. > > So, as I said, I do not see the problem. Can we always return views? Yes. Do > they gives us benefits in every case? No. Should we do it? Almost never. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
