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

[Dirk Mueller]

On Die, 29 Apr 2003, Marc Mutz wrote:

> Read my lips: This thread is about the STL _a_l_g_o_r_i_t_h_m_s_ acting 
> on _Q_t_ containers. Qt-stl vs. Qt-no-stl has _n_o_ (I repeat: _n_o_) 
> impact on STL container usage whatsoever.

Right. And they just magically integrate with QTL, with no overhead at all. 

Nice. If it would be true. 

The copy constructors and assignment operator implementations I read always 
made a deep copy of the STL based container and constructed a QTL 
equivalent. Sounds like a clever and performant implementation for KDE. 


-- 
Dirk