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

[George Staikos]

On Monday 28 April 2003 17:20, Marc Mutz wrote:
> 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.

   What do you think unique() does?  Magic O(1) logic?

> 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() );

  No difference in this case.  So what?

-- 
George Staikos
KDE Developer				http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc.		http://www.staikos.net/