On 2012/06/15 07:26 PM, Charley Bay wrote:
(1) Its interface is too minimal (insufficient)
(2) Its implementation is limited
(3) It does not support real-world-unicode use
That's my venting because for over a decade I never understood why
people thought std::string was an acceptable
I'd say one reason is the encoding awareness of QString alone is a good reason.
Fiddling around with libicu and alike is a mess. Regarding the int to string
thing. Who codes C++ without boost nowadays? boost::lexical_cast ftw.
Greetz,
Mike
On 15.06.2012, at 12:50, Rui Maciel
More people than you might think. ;)
On 06/16/2012 06:45 PM, Michael Seydl wrote:
Who codes C++ without boost nowadays?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
When there's no Qt I definitely would use boost. It's header only ... mostly
... very portable and provides everything one could need. Asio, regex,
filesystem, spirit ... But that's the Qt mailing list don't wanna make
advertisement for another library here. ;)
Sent from my iPhone
On
Nobody forces you to. Due to naming conflicts of slots and signals moc
including boost can be quite a hassle. What I tried to say is std::string needs
enhancement when QString is not available and that one good stable possibility
is boost.
Personally I used boost::bind and boost::function
On Saturday 16 June 2012 Jun, Michael Seydl wrote:
When there's no Qt I definitely would use boost. It's header only ... mostly
... very portable and provides everything one could need. Asio, regex,
filesystem, spirit ... But that's the Qt mailing list don't wanna make
advertisement for
I actually don't know anyone directly who codes C++ _with_ boost.
I use boost when it is non-graphical stuff and the LGPL is not
good enough.
Guido
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
Does anyone know what's the rationale for relying on Qt's custom QString
instead of simply using C++'s standard and omnipresent std::string?
Thanks in advance,
Rui Maciel
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
15.06.2012, 14:50, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com:
Does anyone know what's the rationale for relying on Qt's custom QString
instead of simply using C++'s standard and omnipresent std::string?
1. Historical reasons - STL was not implemented on the same level in all
compilers
in the past.
2.
On 06/15/2012 11:55 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
1. Historical reasons - STL was not implemented on the same level in all
compilers
in the past.
Is this constraint still relevant today?
2. std::string does not hadle UTF16 strings, and std::wstring is non-standard
With C++11, UTF-16
15.06.2012, 16:12, Constantin Makshin cmaks...@gmail.com:
On 06/15/2012 02:55 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
15.06.2012, 14:50, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com:
Does anyone know what's the rationale for relying on Qt's custom QString
instead of simply using C++'s standard and omnipresent
On 15.06.2012 14:58, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On sexta-feira, 15 de junho de 2012 16.12.55, Constantin Makshin wrote:
3. std::string's behavior (e.g. use of the copy-on-write technique) is
implementation-dependent while QString is the same everywhere.
C++11 bans that. C++11 says that
On 15.06.2012 14:58, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Any one care to give me the Standard Library equivalent of:
QString::number(x)
string to_string(int) ?
Sven
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
15.06.2012, 16:58, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com:
Any one care to give me the Standard Library equivalent of:
QString::number(x)
static_castostringstream*( (ostringstream() x ) )-str();
--
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Interest
On 15 June 2012 14:35, Sven Anderson sven.ander...@snom.com wrote:
On 15.06.2012 14:58, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Any one care to give me the Standard Library equivalent of:
QString::number(x)
string to_string(int) ?
No go, C++11 only.
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
On 15 June 2012 15:10, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/15/2012 02:50 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
string to_string(int) ?
No go, C++11 only.
But it's standard and it is C++.
But (I think) the point was: what should have we used for the last
10-15 years of QString?
--
Giuseppe
15.06.2012, 17:50, Giuseppe D'Angelo dange...@gmail.com:
On 15 June 2012 14:35, Sven Anderson sven.ander...@snom.com wrote:
On 15.06.2012 14:58, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Any one care to give me the Standard Library equivalent of:
QString::number(x)
string to_string(int) ?
No go,
On 06/15/2012 12:25 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
15.06.2012, 15:19, Rui Macielrui.mac...@gmail.com:
On 06/15/2012 11:55 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
1. Historical reasons - STL was not implemented on the same level in all
compilers
in the past.
Is this constraint still relevant
On sexta-feira, 15 de junho de 2012 17.46.37, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
15.06.2012, 16:58, Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com:
Any one care to give me the Standard Library equivalent of:
QString::number(x)
static_castostringstream*( (ostringstream() x ) )-str();
Don't
On 06/15/2012 03:13 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
But it's standard and it is C++.
But (I think) the point was: what should have we used for the last
10-15 years of QString?
I could've been a bit clearer in my initial post, but I intended to know
if there was currently any reason that
[proper recipient]
2012/6/15 Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com:
...
Wouldn't it be better to simply provide an alternative std::string
implementation for that specific case?
That's what has been done: it's called QString ;)
And how relevant is that
requirement today?
As others have
On 15 June 2012 15:39, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/15/2012 03:13 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
But it's standard and it is C++.
But (I think) the point was: what should have we used for the last
10-15 years of QString?
I could've been a bit clearer in my initial post, but I
From: Till Oliver Knoll till.oliver.kn...@gmail.com
2012/6/15 Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com:
Nevertheless, why is it important to support UTF-16?
1. Faster string search modification than for UTF8
2. It's native UTF string format on Windows and Mac OS X.
How relevant is the efficiency of
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:39:06 +0300, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 06/15/2012 03:13 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
But it's standard and it is C++.
But (I think) the point was: what should have we used for the last
10-15 years of QString?
I could've been a bit clearer in my
But it's standard and it is C++.
But (I think) the point was: what should have we used for the last
10-15 years of QString?
I could've been a bit clearer in my initial post, but I intended to know
if there was currently any reason that justified having QString around
instead of
15.06.2012, 21:26, Charley Bay charleyb...@gmail.com:
That's my venting because for over a decade I never understood why people
thought std::string was an acceptable component. IMHO it's absolutely
useless. And dangerous. I don't care if I'm the only one on the planet with
my
On 6/15/12 10:18 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
15.06.2012, 17:50, Giuseppe D'Angelo dange...@gmail.com:
On 15 June 2012 14:35, Sven Anderson sven.ander...@snom.com wrote:
On 15.06.2012 14:58, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Any one care to give me the Standard Library equivalent of:
I know C+11 is not available everywhere but they did work on lexical casting:string to_string(int val);string to_string(unsigned val);string to_string(long val);string to_string(unsigned long val);string to_string(long long val);string to_string(unsigned long long val);string to_string(float
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:50:47AM +0100, Rui Maciel wrote:
Does anyone know what's the rationale for relying on Qt's custom QString
instead of simply using C++'s standard and omnipresent std::string?
std::string is closer to QByteArray than to QString, so you are
probably not asking the
On sexta-feira, 15 de junho de 2012 14.31.26, 3dw...@verizon.net wrote:
Hereaps;s hoping the upgrade at least the standard library a LOT faster
going forward.br /br //div
Great! Now maybe in C++15 or 16 we'll be able to convert strings from the
local 8-bit codec to Unicode without using
30 matches
Mail list logo
