kshegunov at gmail.com
Tue Jun 11 21:36:44 CEST 2019
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:04 PM Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com>
> Well, one difference is that we don't _already_ have an implementation
> of flat (unordered) maps to be replaced by a 3rd party library, and we
> are finding lots of cases where this would be useful...
Fair point. We don't already have an implementation that solves systems,
but I leave that to rest, it's not that important for this thread. But to
play devil's advocate for a second - taking the stance that QVector, QList
and friends should go away, isn't it better to *ask* that such a container
goes into the STL and use that instead of boost? Or even just wait for it
to materialize in the STL (eventually), i.e. basically do nothing?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:02 PM André Pönitz <apoenitz at t-online.de> wrote:
> I don't think that (non-)COW is a problem in the scenario under discussion.
It may, if eventually it's to be exposed as public class, that's why I
brought it up. Otherwise I personally don't have any objection to (or
argument against) a non-shared container.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development