[Development] Proposal: Deprecate QVector in Qt 6
elvstone at gmail.com
Thu Apr 23 15:28:05 CEST 2020
Den tors 23 apr. 2020 kl 13:38 skrev André Pönitz <apoenitz at t-online.de>:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Elvis Stansvik wrote:
> > Den tors 23 apr. 2020 kl 11:45 skrev Laszlo Agocs <laszlo.agocs at qt.io>:
> > >
> > > That depends on the number of the functions affected, and how commonly those
> > > are used. If we are talking about just a few virtual functions here and there
> > > which are not expected to be overriden by a vast majority of applications
> > > (such as the QIconEngine example), then changing the signatures is probably
> > > acceptable. After all, Qt 6 will have a number of source compatibility breaks
> > > (typically in less commonly used APIs) anyways, let's have no illusions here.
> > > So on its own this should not be an argument for reprioritizing the tainted
> > > QList name.
> > >
> > > For years we have been teaching people to stay away from QList and treat it as
> > > a legacy thing in the API, and that it may change in a future major release.
> > > Any newly introduced public APIs (in the graphics-related areas at least) for
> > > the past 5-6 years are using QVector. It is odd to turn this over just like
> > > that.
> > I have to agree with Laszlo here. The message has been that QList due to its
> > duality etc is problematic and may become deprecated, so we've put in work on
> > changing it to QVector in our code bases [...]
> Was that work more than s/QList/QVector/ ?
No, not really, plus looking through the code in each case to make
sure it didn't rely on some QList peculiarity. But it was not much
As I said, I'll accept whatever is decided, but think it would be a
little strange to make this turn in the recommendations at this point.
Everyone who has done this change to QVector will then have to go back
> >and used QVector in newly written
> > code. It's a bit annoying if QList is now to become the name to be used. I'll
> > accept whatever is decided, but think it's a little unfortunate if we'd have to
> > change all that code back to QList again.
More information about the Development