[Development] QUIP 6: removing top-level const from return types

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Tue May 23 23:56:15 CEST 2017

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 11:22:46 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
> These are acceptable because they affect only more-or-less broken code.
> And since they are acceptable, we ought to be able to perform them
> freely, without a discussion every time. We don't discuss adding
> function overloads. We weren't even aware that there's an issue. We used
> to discuss removing unneeded #includes or adding explicit to ctors, both
> of which used to be effectively banned, until the discussion leading to
> QUIP-6 culminated in the decision that these are acceptable.
> Unfortunately, this thread slowly eats away all the productivity gain we
> have enjoyed due to reduced debates since then.

Ok, I got it: we're not arguing the compatibility issue.

We are arguing whether the change makes the code uglier and is worth that 
ugliness. I'm not sold on that. Leave those const behind until Qt 6, unless 
you can show that engaging the move constructor is important.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the Development mailing list