[Development] RFC: Proposal for a semi-radical change in Qt APIs taking strings

[Thiago Macieira]

On Monday 19 October 2015 07:14:55 Smith Martin wrote:
> >The point I'm trying to make
> >is that returning a non-owning copy means that something else must own the
> >data. That's what goes against the library code policy.
> 
> The library code policy is an one that has always made sense in the
> pre-string_view world. But if string_view is being added to C++, don't we
> have to add it to Qt? And if we add it to Qt, don't we have to support it
> in all the Qt classes where it could improve performance?

I don't think that string_view makes a difference. The point is still the same: 
returning non-owning copies of data implies something else owns it. We haven't 
done that so far and I don't think string_view should change the policy.

> 
> Won't internet-of-things developers want a library that fully supports
> string_view?

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center