[Development] The future of smart pointers in Qt API

[Fawzi Mohamed]

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the nice work of looking to use unique_ptr, I like it, I think it makes ownership clearer.
About having wrappers or not I am still on the fence, I think using stl when possible is a good idea, but I see the advantage of having consistent naming, so I am not sure about the best option.
Still I find the idea of using unique_ptr in the API as you proposed a good thing.
--
Fawzi Mohamed
Senior Software Developer

The Qt Company
Address
Erich-Thilo-Str.10D-12489, Berlin, Germany
fawzi.mohamed at qt.io
+49 30 63 92 3255
http://qt.io

The Future is Written with Qt
--

> On 2. Feb 2020, at 23:30, Daniel Teske <qt at squorn.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 02.02.2020 um 18:17 schrieb Иван Комиссаров:
>> Can we please return to the discussion about QObject parent/child with smart pointers rather than discussing Qt/stl naming?
>> 
>> No one answered my question about QObject::deleteLater:
>> 
>>> And what about the QObject::deleteLater() method? Any ideas how this should look like with smart pointers?
> 
> So obviously this:
> 
> std::unique_ptr<> ptr;
> ptr->deleteLater();
> 
> should show a warning. Thus, the first step is to annotate deleteLater with a optional deprecation.
> 
> Then two new functions need to be added:
> 
> static QObject::deleteLater(QObject *ptr)
> 
> which does not violate that invariant. (Unless you take a pointer out of a unique_ptr and pass it in.)
> 
> And a second variant:
> static QObject::deleteLater(std::unique_ptr<QObject> ptr)
> 
> which quite obviously also keeps the invariant.
> 
> I think I missed the function in my patch, but that's how you could easily do it.
> 
> daniel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development