On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:04:58PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 06/12/2022 à 16:17, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
> > commit f3f478c2fbcf89302ccadeb30aac413a40039d12
> > Author: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org>
> > Date: Tue Dec 6 17:12:45 2022 +0100
> >
> > C++11 compilation fix
>
> > for (iter = refs_.begin(); iter != refs_.end(); ++iter) {
> > // first: plain label name, second: gui name
> > QString const lab = toqstr((*iter).first);
> > - refsNames.append(QPair(lab, toqstr((*iter).second)));
> > + refsNames.append({lab, toqstr((*iter).second)});
>
> This elicited the answer "Huh?" from Jürgen, but sent to the lyx-cvs list,
> so only Riki and I saw it.
>
> Could I have a authoritative answer to the question whether a constructor
> like QPair(a, b) can be replaced with {a, b} when the context is clear
> enough?
>
> I notice that we use that already, but I may be wrong about when it is
> acceptable.A slightly off-topic question: why use QPair instead of std::pair? The Qt documentation [1] says: QPair<T1, T2> can be used in your application if the STL pair type is not available. Also, this is an interesting Qt issue: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-80309 It seems like they suggest using std::pair over QPair, but QPair was decided to not be deprecated. Scott [1] https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qpair.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
