[Development] QList

[evilruff at gmail.com]

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 10:39, Martin Smith <Martin.Smith at qt.io> wrote:
> 
> >The whole issue here is the "sure it is longer".
> 
> It's not the WHOLE issue. If you encounter... 
> 
> auto keys = theHash.keys();
> 

> ...in someone's code, you have to look around in the rest of the code to figure out what keys is, unless you are already familiar with the keys() function for whatever theHash is. 

Totally agree. That’s why I never use auto's myself as then you work on many different projects after several years in complicated code you hardly remember what those ‘auto’s’ means.
I mean I am not against them in general, but as for me I prefer to have an explicit typing in my code, it’s much easier to read.

As for QList/QVector.. With all respect to what’s already was saying in this thread, issues mentioned in original article about Qt containers are known for years and it’s more about to choose right container, I really don’t see a point why should I change something if I know exactly how my code works and why I use one or another container. 

As an example I have one project which is already about 15-17 years old..it’s big commercial product. It started with Qt3, then was at some point moved by somebody to Qt4 with Qt3Support.. then I got back to it we started to migrate it to Qt5, it took almost half a year for me to migrate it to stable version. I am not even talking about a fact that last year I hardly can answer myself which 5.* is a production version, but that’s other subject. 

So I really think that removing/changing behaviour of such core things like QList is really a bad idea. It’s not about laziness.. it’s more about that the ones who understand difference between QVector/QList etc already using them right, and for others it doest really matter..

Yuri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20170322/be4a6f79/attachment.html>