> On 6 Oct 2018, at 00:47, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, 5 October 2018 08:35:10 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: >> Cons: >> Suppresses move construction as in >> QCborValue v = array[n]; >> this still compiles, but passes through the copy constructor, not the move >> one. We cana add an extra move constructor for const QCborValue && if >> necessary. > > Never mind, you can't move from the const rvalue reference. It needs to be > modifiable. > > So, again: should we have the const in the return types at the expense of > losing the move semantic?
I’d go for returning a const object. It’s a shame to loose the move semantics, but the other case would lead to easy programming errors. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
