[Development] Proposal: Deprecate QVector in Qt 6

André Pönitz apoenitz at t-online.de
Thu Apr 23 20:00:36 CEST 2020

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> On 4/23/20 1:20 PM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> > So how much harm does it really cause, to keep both names; and use
> > whichever feels like the more natural description of the value one is
> > returning ?
> I missing the bigger picture about this thread. What are we trying to assess
> / solve?

I am not sure what everyone else is trying to solve, but I know
what I am trying to solve.

I am trying to solve the problem that moving an application from
Qt 5 to 6 will require significant effort, arguably too much effort
already for, so we'll see a lot of applications reluctantly,
or possibly never, moving to Qt 6, effectively dropping out.

And I think that's a situation nobody here should be interested in.

Solving the QList issue by saying "nothing to be done" takes
away some part of the pressure, specifically one that has the
potential of touching a large part of a code base.
> If we went the other way around, i.e. QList is the "default" type, like
> proposed: doesn't the task stay fundamentally the same?

No, because there's a lot less code using QVector, and from that
quite a bit only introduced recently, i.e. in an context where
one can hope that the projects actually have active resources
to "fix" things.

> [...]


More information about the Development mailing list