Previously it handled Latin-1, which made it incompatible with UTF-8,
which is now our preferred 8-bit encoding. For Qt6 it is limited to
ASCII. Adjusted tests to match. QLatin1String::compare() turned out
to be relying on qstrnicmp()'s Latin-1 handling.
Removed some spurious Q_UNLIKELY()s and tidied up code a little in the
process.
[ChangeLog][QtCore][Important Behavior Changes] Encoding-dependent
features of QByteArrray are now limited to ASCII, where previously
they worked for the whole of Latin-1. This affects case-insensitive
comparison, notably including qstricmp() and qstrnicmp(), and
case-transforming functions.
Fixes: QTBUG-84323
Change-Id: I2925d9908f8654599195a2860847b17083911b41
Reviewed-by: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll@qt.io>
Reviewed-by: Qt CI Bot <qt_ci_bot@qt-project.org>
This class is designed as C++20-style generator / lazy sequence, and
the new return value of QString{,View}::tokenize().
It thus is more similar to a hand-coded loop around indexOf() than
QString::split(), which returns a container (the filling of which
allocates memory).
The template arguments of QStringTokenizer intricately depend on the
arguments with which it is constructed, so QStringTokenizer cannot be used
directly without C++17 CTAD. To work around this issue, add a factory
function, qTokenize().
LATER:
- ~Optimize QLatin1String needles (avoid repeated L1->UTF16 conversion)~
(out of scope for QStringTokenizer, should be solved in the respective
indexOf())
- Keep per-instantiation state:
* Boyer-Moore table
[ChangeLog][QtCore][QStringTokenizer] New class.
[ChangeLog][QtCore][qTokenize] New function.
Change-Id: I7a7a02e9175cdd3887778f29f2f91933329be759
Reviewed-by: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll@qt.io>
Reviewed-by: Edward Welbourne <edward.welbourne@qt.io>
Make the API more symmetric with regards to both QString and QStringRef.
Change-Id: Ia67c53ba708f6c33874d1a127de8e2857ad9b5b8
Reviewed-by: Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer@qt.io>
Make the API more symmetric with regards to both QString and QStringRef.
Having this available helps making QStringView more of a drop-in
replacement for QStringRef. QStringRef is planned to get removed in Qt 6.
Change-Id: Ife036c0b55970078f42e1335442ff9ee5f4a2f0d
Reviewed-by: Volker Hilsheimer <volker.hilsheimer@qt.io>
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>
