[Development] The future of smart pointers in Qt API

[André Somers]

Hi,

Pure from a transitioning perspective: isn't it rather late for such a 
massive change? Wasn't it the idea that 5.15 would be the 
"transitioning" version that people could use to make their code 
Qt6-ready? In that case, should this not have already been implemented 
in Qt 5.15, as I think that one is FF now?

Cheers,

André

On 31-01-20 11:07, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> We’ve been discussing for a while how Qt6 API can be improved with using
> smart pointers. Recently we came into some conclusions and want to
> discuss them with the community.
>
> Smart pointers are for sure much better to use than raw pointers for
> many reasons. They manage lifetime automatically, show ownership
> semantic, and make code safer. It’s planned to officially recommend them
> to use in Qt6 API instead of raw pointers whenever this is possible. For
> sure, it should only be a choice for newly designed API.
>
> But how to use them in the API and which way is preferable is still
> unclear. There are two main options we have:
>
> 1) Use std::*  smart pointers as-is.
>
> 2) Add Qt-style wrappers around std::* smart pointers and move old
> implementations of Qt smart pointers to the Qt5Compact module.
>
> Both options have pros and cons. It would be useful to hear your
> thoughts on it. It’s worth mentioning that some other options, like
> using Qt smart pointers as-is, were also discussed. They were found less
> suitable, but feel free to share your opinion if you disagree.
>
> Another thing to discuss is whether we should use raw pointers in the
> API at all or not. There are a few options again:
>
> 1) Yes
>
> 2) No. Use “modern” approaches instead (pass mandatory dependencies by
> either reference or const reference when using smart pointers makes no
> sense, use something optional-like or tuples to return extra data from
> functions, and so on)
>
> 3) Mix 1 and 2.
>
> There are pros and cons for all options. Share your opinion once again,
> please.
>
> If there are any related things to discuss, let’s do that in this thread.
>