[Development] How qAsConst and qExchange lead to qNN

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Mon Nov 14 18:11:59 CET 2022

On Monday, 14 November 2022 08:22:44 PST Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> Can we agree that NOI for setters is a no-brainer? Then 90% of the
> usefulness of NOI can already be reaped, in a BC and SC manner. There's
> pretty little we can do with return values before Qt 7, except use the
> stuff in private APIs to try it out. But we can and should convert
> setters already.

Not without conditions.

I can agree with that so long as it doesn't remove the ability to add the 
owning equivalent as overload, even if it is a Q_WEAK_OVERLOAD, where it 
benefits because the target code is going to store anyway.

I don't think we will ever change return types.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering

More information about the Development mailing list