[Development] Proposal: Deprecate QVector in Qt 6

[Philippe]

Almost all the time I second your positions, but not this time ;)

QList is historically a cause of ambiguity, and Qt6 is the chance to get rid of that.

Philippe

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:53:04 +0000
Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io> wrote:

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> 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
>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20200423/99f07454/attachment.html>