1. You're still yellow. (Message backgrounds anyway)
2. I think you're too hung up on the size of your computer. :-)
3. I agree network byte order is the lingua franca, but you're spending CPU cycles to swap bytes around. However this only wastes instructions on enciding and decoding information stored and read back by the same architecture. 
4. Whatever is done needs to be biendian. Defaults shouldn't matter because you shouldn't be assuming defaults are the same between machines.
5. CBOR specifies big-endian. "All multi-byte values are encoded in network byte order (that is, most significant byte first, also known as "big-endian")."
 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 at 6:01 PM
From: "Roland Hughes" <rol...@logikalsolutions.com>
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 79, Issue 21

 

 
On 04/30/2018 10:57 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
At this point, I'm thinking long-term we should think of whether we should 
deprecate QDataStream or whether the discussion we had on basing it on CBOR 
makes more sense.
Whatever replaces/continues QDataStream must continue big-endian.

If you want to create a class for little computers which never transmit data to real computers, that's fine. Just don't destroy something for the simple reason it isn't the default behavior of hobby computers. It was created the way it is for a reason and that reason still exists today.
 
-- 
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
http://lesedi.us/
http://onedollarcontentstore.com
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

Reply via email to