[Development] Proposal: Deprecate QVector in Qt 6

[Simon Hausmann]

Hi,

If we did the search & replace and use QVector throughout our API, won't that make it harder for our users to maintain a code base with 5 and 6? For example if we change the signature of virtual functions.

I think we'd do our users a favour by sticking to QList - I'm not concerned about the popularity of Qt in online forums but rather about the practical difficulties of developing with Qt.


Simon
________________________________
From: Laszlo Agocs <laszlo.agocs at qt.io>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:41
To: Jaroslaw Kobus <Jaroslaw.Kobus at qt.io>; Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io>; Simon Hausmann <Simon.Hausmann at qt.io>
Cc: Qt development mailing list <development at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal: Deprecate QVector in Qt 6

-1 for QList. Why reuse and prioritize a name that has been tainted by plenty of past discussions and comes with a lot of past baggage? Any Google etc. search will bring up plenty of "QList-bad QVector-good" materials for years to come, potentially leading to lots of Qt 5 vs Qt 6 confusion. Also, Qt 5.x is not going to disappear overnight.

The current status quo of QList being an alias to QVector in Qt 6, with QVector being the primary and recommended name, is pretty good IMHO, it is not clear to me why this would need any further changes. An additional search & replace (QList->QVector) round in the public headers does not sound like a bad idea at all.

Best regards,
Laszlo



________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Jaroslaw Kobus <Jaroslaw.Kobus at qt.io>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:20 AM
To: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io>; Simon Hausmann <Simon.Hausmann at qt.io>
Cc: Qt development mailing list <development at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal: Deprecate QVector in Qt 6

+1 for QList.

(6) No need to remane QStringList into QStringVector for consistency reasons.

Jarek

________________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 9:53 AM
To: Simon Hausmann
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Proposal: Deprecate QVector in Qt 6

I’ve had similar thoughts lately as well. I can see a few more reasons to keep QList as the name of the class:

(3) Less ambiguity with QVector(2/3/4)D
(4) QList is the known type and the one promoted in our API so far, so no need for people to re-learn Qt
(5) a lot less code churn for us and our users

So I’m in favour of doing this and keeping QList as the name for the class.

Cheers,
Lars

On 23 Apr 2020, at 09:43, Simon Hausmann <Simon.Hausmann at qt.io<mailto:Simon.Hausmann at qt.io>> wrote:

Hi,

In dev we've had QVector being an alias for QList for a while now. For the 6.0 release this particular topic (QList/QVector) suggests two goals (among others):

    (1) Use the same type throughout the public API of Qt.

    (2) Make it easy for our users to maintain a code base that works with Qt 5 and 6.


In the light of those two goals, I think we should keep using QList as the type in the public API. I don't think we should do a search and replace activity and switch to QVector. In the light of that, I would like to propose simply deprecating QVector and stick to QList everywhere.


What do you think?


Simon
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org<mailto:Development at qt-project.org>
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20200423/a346a988/attachment-0001.html>