[Development] Unnecessary ambiguity in Qt documentation about reentrancy and safety of const methods.

[Thiago Macieira]

On Saturday, 18 July 2026 14:47:13 Pacific Daylight Time Giuseppe D'Angelo via 
Development wrote:
> I think we should officially extend the contract, because:

Agreed.


> The tradeoff is that the functions that are currently marked as
> reentrant and use lazy initialization, caching, or any similar
> thread-unsafe techniques, need to be documented to be *not* reentrant.
> Luckily there should be very few of such functions. I guess that
> documenting these few exceptions is a smaller loss than the gain of
> aligning ourselves to C++ established practices / people's expectations.

Preferably, fix those we can, because we can't expect everyone to have read the 
documentation. Even if they have, exceptions to the rule are hard to remember.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Principal Engineer - Intel DCG - Platform & Sys. Eng.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20260718/678164d4/attachment.bin>