Why would we want to add a wrapper for char's? I don't see any added value of having a 'QByte' class/struct/typedef.
And let's face it: I think it'll be a lot of work to unify the implementations, and I am very uncertain what the added value would be (apart from satisfying some definition of being cleaner). I'd say let's adjust the data structures to what's needed, but not spend time now on reimplementing the classes. At least not as long as we have other, more important things to get fixed. Lars On 10/17/11 2:46 PM, "ext Oswald Buddenhagen" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 04:30:39PM +0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: >> When I talked to João this week, he expressed the desire to unify the >> header code of QVector, QByteArray and QString. >> >whether deriving from qvector makes sense i don't know, but i'm very >much in favor of implementing QString and QByteArray as >QStringBase<QChar> and QStringBase<QByte>. for compatibility, data() >would have to continue to return QChar* resp. uchar*, but more unified >access could be granted via array() (or wrappedData()) (returning QChar* >resp. QByte*) and optionally podArray() (or podData()) (returning >ushort* resp. uchar*). >_______________________________________________ >Qt5-feedback mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
