Hi!
We have branched '6.6.1' from '6.6'. So from now on all changes targeted to Qt
6.6.1 release must have 'Pick-to: 6.6.1' and '6.6' is for Qt 6.6.2 release. As
usual staging in '6.6.1' is restricted to release team only and we will monitor
incoming changes and stage the clear ones in
Il 14/11/23 09:12, Marc Mutz via Development ha scritto:
Given that this is an API that is going to stay with us for at least a decade,
I'd rather get it right than getting it soon.
We're discussing various tangential aspects for half a year now. At some
point, all the cards are on the table
On Tuesday, 14 November 2023 08:25:34 PST Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
> > The ABI functions can return one of these other types:
> > bool (for equality comparisons)
> > int (for non-partial ordering)
> > QPartialOrdering (for partial ordering)
>
> IIUC, returning QPartialOrdering is
> The ABI functions can return one of these other types:
> bool (for equality comparisons)
> int (for non-partial ordering)
> QPartialOrdering (for partial ordering)
IIUC, returning QPartialOrdering is exactly what we want to avoid, due to the
std::partial_ordering -> QPartialOrdering (and
On Tuesday, 14 November 2023 04:17:18 PST Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> It's dangerously close to q20, yes, but q20 types switch at compile-time
> between std and fall-back types, which means they cannot be used in the
> ABI (yes, I used qxp::function_ref in QTestLib, but that doesn't have a
On Tuesday, 14 November 2023 04:17:18 PST Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> It's dangerously close to q20, yes, but q20 types switch at compile-time
> between std and fall-back types, which means they cannot be used in the
> ABI (yes, I used qxp::function_ref in QTestLib, but that doesn't have a
On 14.11.23 11:54, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> Volker Hilsheimer (14 November 2023 10:00) wrote:
>> Adding Qt::snake_case interims that are BC with std, with conversion
>> from/to QPartialOrdering, is the right thing to do.
>
> Perhaps namespace q20 would be a better place for them, given both the
On 14 Nov 2023, at 10:00, Volker Hilsheimer via Development
wrote:
On 14 Nov 2023, at 09:40, Marc Mutz via Development
wrote:
On 14.11.23 09:31, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
[...]
And then naming them Qt::partial_ordering is just consequent, because
users can reach ultimate SC by doing
The naming makes sense, given their purpose. But can we put them in a dedicated
Qt::std_compat namespace? Or is that too late? That would make it clear these
are not Qt proper types (living in the Qt namespace), but dedicated compat
types/BC/SC vehicles .
Tor Arne
On 14 Nov 2023, at 10:00,
Volker Hilsheimer (14 November 2023 10:00) wrote:
> Adding Qt::snake_case interims that are BC with std, with conversion
> from/to QPartialOrdering, is the right thing to do.
Perhaps namespace q20 would be a better place for them, given both the
naming (snake-case, to match stl) and the plan ?
> On 14 Nov 2023, at 09:40, Marc Mutz via Development
> wrote:
>
> On 14.11.23 09:31, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> [...]
>> And then naming them Qt::partial_ordering is just consequent, because
>> users can reach ultimate SC by doing something like
>>
>> #ifdef
On 14.11.23 09:31, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
[...]
> And then naming them Qt::partial_ordering is just consequent, because
> users can reach ultimate SC by doing something like
>
> #ifdef __cpp_lib_three_way_comparison
> using std::partial_ordering;
>
> #else
>
On 13.11.23 19:24, Thiago Macieira wrote:
[...]
> It could be done, but I just don't see the value.
I do.
> If we do it, please come up with proper Qt-style class names for it. No
> snake_case.
No. We don't _want_ these to be Qt-style classes. _You_ should not want
them to be Qt-style classes.
On 13.11.23 19:25, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2023 09:38:43 PST Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
>> I really do not want to miss yet another FF.
>
> Given that this is an API that is going to stay with us for at least a decade,
> I'd rather get it right than getting it
14 matches
Mail list logo
