[Development] The future of smart pointers in Qt API
André Pönitz
apoenitz at t-online.de
Tue Feb 11 20:19:36 CET 2020
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:15:11PM +0000, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote:
> I want to summarize intermediate results of the discussion and return it
> back to the track.
>
>
> Subject: using smart pointers in the API.
> Good idea. Better to use than not because of automatic lifetime
> management,
*shrug*
You seem to repeat your initial statements.
QObject parents _do_ manage lifetime to start with.
> Subject: raw pointers for passing mandatory parameters vs. using
> references.
> Allow both approaches, recommend using references (and/or smart
> pointers) when acceptable.
> Not too many arguments collected here, just
> try to make Qt API more modern.
Again only your statement.
The issue itself has been discussed over and over again.
Allowing _both_ I have not seen actively endorsed by anyone,
this only makes a messy incosnsistent API.
> There are a few irrelevant discussions. Start a new thread if you want
> to continue discussing them, please.
>
> Irrelevant subject: smart pointers vs. parent-child lifetime management
> model.
Sure. Because it would void the 'lifetime management' line of reasoning.
Andre'
More information about the Development
mailing list