> On 23 Nov 2020, at 09:57, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 22/09/2020 16:17, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> And especially if there's no impact to how the user uses the API. >>> 1) >>> std::optional<int> compare(); >>> >>> 2) >>> enum class Ordering { Less = -1, Equal = 0, Greater = 1, Unordered = 0xff >>> }; >>> Ordering compare(); >>> >>> 3) >>> Implement a Qt replacement for std::partial_ordering (could use the std >>> stuff if C++ 20 is available) and use that. >> I'd rather stay simple and allow extending for <compare> where more details >> are necessary. >> For that, I think #1. > > I'm reopening this old thread (which I somehow missed) because eventually #1 > was implemented. But optional<int> is the wrong API for a comparison result. > > I've quickly implemented 3) and pushed it here. It's only missing docs. > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/322900 > > (includes the rationale of why optional is the wrong datatype) > I like this approach. > > Still in time to target 6.0.0?
I guess it’s now or never ;-) Have you checked that it doesn’t cause issues in other modules? The API is new, so I doubt it’s used widely. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
