Reason for -no-stl in qt-copy configure recommendation?

[Guillaume Laurent]

On Thursday 24 April 2003 14:56, George Staikos wrote:
>   I don't think this is a good idea.  I foresee much more STL use as
> opposed to Qt use, for one.

I very much doubt that. For one thing the STL is generally harder to use than 
the Qt classes. But most of all there's no widely avaiable good documentation 
about it (the SGI pages are rather crude). You'll have a hard time using it 
without a good book on the subject.

> We'll be fragmenting our use of containers.
> If it's available to developers, I'm sure they'll use it instead.

For the record we happily mix STL and Qt containers in Rosegarden. We 
generally prefer STL containers but the Qt pointer-based containers are also 
very convenient because of the setAutoDelete() feature. I think having the 
STL algorithms available is good enough a reason.

> It just adds mostly unnecessary code to Qt too.

I doubt it would have a measurable impact.

-- 
						Guillaume.
						http://www.telegraph-road.org