Re: [Rosegarden-devel] STRING CONCATENATION FOR MESSAGES IS *BAD*

[Chris C. <ca...@al...>]

On Saturday 18 January 2003 16:49, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> On Saturday 18 January 2003 17:29, Richard Bown wrote:
> > The point is - do we trust Qt?
>
> Yes. For two reasons : [...]

Oh, I have no problem "trusting" Qt.  I just don't want to use Qt in=20
our core library.  We use the Standard Library for everything else in=20
there, rightly I think, so why not just stick with standard strings?

Actually (I've mentioned this before) I'd really like to refactor=20
somewhat so as to introduce at least one more library layer between=20
base and gui, to contain things like notation and layout-related=20
classes that are not actually specific to the Qt GUI.  There are lots=20
of classes in gui that don't necessarily need to be there.  I would=20
also probably avoid using Qt in this library.

It's got nothing to do with the availability of the code, etc., it's=20
just a matter of design principles.  I do not believe that a core=20
library that's fundamentally non-GUI-related should depend on a large=20
GUI library just because one of the developers thinks it'd be nice=20
not to use the standard (standard!) C++ string class.  I don't care=20
whether the only application for that core library happens to be in a=20
GUI environment, the point still stands.

Frankly, I'm also motivated partly by irritation at the fact that I=20
can't just use my perfectly good std::strings directly with Qt=20
classes.  I know exactly why that is, but it's still exasperating,=20
and I don't like feeling coerced into changing good design into bad=20
to accommodate a defect of a GUI library.


Chris