Qt6 QString[] QChar compare with char

[Dariusz]

Hey
Say I have something like this...

QString te("dcfsacsa")
te[0] == "#"

What is the proper way of doing it under Qt6 as atm it just errors out with

error C2678: binary '==': no operator found which takes a left-hand operand of type 'QChar' (or there is no acceptable conversion)

[JonB]

@Dariusz said in Qt6 QString[] QChar compare with char:

te[0] == "#"

I know nothing about Qt6, or whether there is something special there. However, I think you have mistyped. te[0] is QChar, but you are comparing against "#", which is a (literal) string, not a char. I think you intended

if (te[0] == '#') ...

[jeremy_k]

That isn't a comparison between QString and char, but rather QChar and char. Convert the right argument to a QChar.

[JonB]

@Dariusz said in Qt6 QString[] QChar compare with char:

te[0] == "#"

I know nothing about Qt6, or whether there is something special there. However, I think you have mistyped. te[0] is QChar, but you are comparing against "#", which is a (literal) string, not a char. I think you intended

if (te[0] == '#') ...

[Ketan__Patel__0011]

if you want to get singal character from your string
then you can use QString::at() it return the character from your string at particular index.

Try This

QString te("dcfsacsa");

if(te.at(0) == '#')
{
/// Your Code
}
else
{
/// Your Code
}

[Dariusz]

Hey

Thanks! The QString::at() looks better than the QChar("#") I was thinking of doing. Should be faster I take?

Regards
Dariusz

[Dariusz]

Ok so QString::at() returns QChar. So that is not help

Also I cant do QString[0] == QChar("#") because there is apparently no constructor for it?

I end up with QString[0] == QString("#")

I'm a bit worried with overhead here...

[JonB]

@Dariusz

Also I cant do QString[0] == QChar("#") because there is apparently no constructor for it?

Did you read what I wrote above? I told you why your "#" won't work. It's a good idea to read and act on answers rather than ignoring them....

[Dariusz]

@JonB Oh buggers... I missed the " to ' change. Thanks! Yea that make more sense now o.o