On Tuesday 20 October 2015 00:51:58 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Monday 19. October 2015 23:26:45 Marc Mutz wrote:
> > This particular mistake is easy to prevent statically, though:
> >
> > QStringView(QString &&) = delete;
>
> No.
>
> We want this to work:
>
> if (isValidIdentifier(myVariant.toString()))
>
> with isValidIdentifier taking a QStringView and toString returning a
> temporary.
That can be mitigated by overloading isValidIdentifier with a QString &&. That
is:
bool isValidIdentifier(QString &&id);
bool isValidIdentifier(const QStringView &id);
The first one can delegate to the second, as inside it the id parameter is
lvalue, not rvalue. That is:
bool isValidIdentifier(QString &&id)
{ return isValidIdentifier(QStringView(id)); }
Note that this overload is not necessary for existing APIs where a const
QString& overload is already present, as that will bind to the rvalue just
fine.
So is there any case where we'd want a QString&& overload instead of a const
QString &?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
