On poniedziaÅek 22 listopad 2004 05:58 am, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:12:05AM +0100, Lars Gullik BjÃnnes wrote: > > >> | + v->setBottom(glen); > > >> | + return v; > > >> | +} > > >> > > >> I really dont' like these returning pointers. > > | > > | This is 'best Qt practice'. The pointees life time is taken care of by > > | its parent, and this is set at construction. > > > > One of the but-ugly parts of Qt it seems. > > Not the worst, I can assure you. Not the worst... > > Right now they are re-inventing STL. It's called 'Tulip'. The nice > thing that I can see so far is that one does not have to use it.
I don't think this is such a bad idea. Even if you think about performance only. E.g. if you compile your code with gcc, QString performs way better than std::string, for example. And Tulip implements some concepts that stl does not (e.g. Java-style iterators) -- those concepts are easier to use for those who are not very comfortable with STL, and even people intimately familiar with STL might find them more to their liking. Whether it's STL or Tulip, it comes preassembled for you :) I.e. you, as the end user, does not have to reinvent the wheel. There's nothing great about STL apart from the fact that you don't have to code it. Most widely used implementations of STL are quite mediocre IIRC, performance-wise at least. Cheers, Kuba Ober
