[Development] Improving toInt, toLong, etc.

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 2014-02-04 18:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> (I might go with 'ifInvalid' though... )

Actually, I'll encourage defaultValue, for consistency with the 
containers (unless those got renamed?).

> On 2014-02-04 17:06, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Em ter 04 fev 2014, às 16:04:11, Matthew Woehlke escreveu:
>>> However, now that I think about it, I still somewhat feel like value()
>>> should abort if disengaged, which would also allow a 'T& value()'
>>> signature. (Maybe the 'const' version could still be as above, depending
>>> whether or not it's felt useful to avoid the return value being a copy.)
>>
>> I disagree. Existing "value" methods in Qt are all const and do not abort.
>
> I was thinking of
> http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qmap-iterator.html#value :-). (I didn't
> check the code, but I suspect that aborts - perhaps implicitly by
> SEGV'ing - if the iterator is invalid?)
>
> That said, you still raise a fair point... so I guess it depends if you
> think QOptional should be more like a container or an iterator. I can
> live with the former, especially if operator*() returns T&.

A point for consideration on that note... iterators have an operator* 
which is an alias for (i.e. has same return type and semantics as) 
value() (or vice-versa). Containers don't have an operator* so that 
point doesn't apply.

OTOH, iterators don't have a value(defaultValue).

Again... I could go either way...

-- 
Matthew