No surprises, as char16_t is transparently handled by QChar overloads.
Ok, one surprise: we seem to have QChar <> QByteArray relational
operators, but they don't work for char16_t. Probably members of
QChar, so LHS implicit conversions are disabled. Didn't investigate,
because it needs to be fixed at some point anyway, but that point is
not now.
Change-Id: I74e1c9bdd168e6480e18d7d86c1f13412e718a32
Reviewed-by: Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer@qt.io>
... to not fold QChar tests into QString ones.
This is needed for adding char16_t tests.
Change-Id: I2507d7d68a39ff96cf033eadde10e383dc976dda
Reviewed-by: Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer@qt.io>
In QByteArray, they were just not marked as such.
In QString and QStringRef, the implicit conversion from QChar to
QString would destroy it. Add a QChar overload, delegating to
QStringView.
Added docs for the new overloads, copying from the nearest neighbor so
as to not look out of place. All string classes use different wording
for these functions. A cleanup of this state of affairs is out of the
scope of this patch.
Change-Id: I0b7b1d037aa229bcaf29b793841a18caf977d66b
Reviewed-by: Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer@qt.io>
Reviewed-by: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll@qt.io>
There were a few surprises:
- QByteArray::compare() are missing noexcept (will add)
- ibid., called with non-ascii content and CaseInsensitive fails
(this was discussed on the ML, with tentative agreement that
it's a feature, not a bug; waiting for QUtf8String(View) for a
fix, then).
- As was the case when we did this exercise with the relational
operators, QString(Ref)/QChar is not noexcept (will fix)
These have been QEXPECT_FAIL'ed.
Not much of the cartesian product is implemented at all, yet. These
have been #ifdef'ed with NOT_YET_IMPLEMENTED to see what's still
missing.
Change-Id: I7d9b21e292b98f980aacdc6248e88188f7472ba2
Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
