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

[Marc Mutz]

On Monday 28 April 2003 20:19, George Staikos wrote:
<snip>
>    We already have std::vector equivalence in Qt.  What you are
> saying is that only things that cannot be done with Qt may be done
> with STL?  I will be interested to see this.
<snip>

Look at the case that started this thread: I use QStringList and want to 
have std::unique() functionality. I do what I can in Qt (QStringList, 
QStringList::sort()) and use the STL for things that cannot be done 
with Qt (std::unique()). And no, a for loop is not a replacement.

Oh, and regarding the readability and maintainability of STL vs. QTL 
code: Where, _please_, is the difference between

  std::copy( foo.begin(), foo.end(), bar.begin() );

and

  qCopy( foo.begin(), foo.end(), bar.begin() );

??????????

Marc

-- 
It seems that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the US is
being a close friend and ally.
     -- John Horvath, "The Meaning of Friendship", Telepolis #14395
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030428/d4ce5d83/attachment.sig>