[Development] Adding support for version number comparisons
thiago.macieira at intel.com
Tue May 13 16:43:18 CEST 2014
Em ter 13 maio 2014, às 11:58:15, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:25:34PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Em seg 12 maio 2014, às 12:27:46, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> > > any a-priori transformations needed to make it actually work with random
> > > versioning schemes are highly specific, and should therefore be left to
> > > the user. arbitrary policies totally do not belong into a generic
> > > low-level class in qtcore.
> > It's only random if we write the randomness (i.e., random sort).
> > You meant arbitrary. That means we made a choice on what to do. That's
> > what I am proposing: we make our informed decision about what to do and
> > then document it.
> yes. and what is the added value of hard-coding arbitrary policies (and
> thereby restricting possible use cases) instead of providing a
> minimalistic solution (or two, one for semver and one for strings) and
> putting a few recipes for common schemes into the documentation?
What's the point of providing a minimalistic solution for cookies which just
respects the original Netscape spec and the RFC?
Both have the same answer: it depends on how well it deals with the real
> policy in the classes was always considered a very un-qt thing. the one
> counterexample i can come up with is qlibraryinfo, and it is in fact a
> constant pita.
QLibraryInfo is not about policy, either. It's just reporting what Qt's
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Development