On Friday, 3 May 2019 16:14:09 PDT Иван Комиссаров wrote: > What I am talking about is that explicit is better than implicit. Taking an > address of an object on a stack and passing it to a function that (possibly > can) delete your object is not explicit. Wrapping that operation in a > construction of a smart pointer is explicit. Moving a unique_ptr is > explicit. When you’re «casting» your on-a-stack-QFile to a some smart > pointer, you’re telling the compiler (and other people who read the code) > «trust me, I know what I’m doing, this is intended».
That I can agree with, but this goes back to the suggestion of our own smart QObject pointer classes. In non-compatibility mode, a function that adopts the passed object should only accept from another smart pointer. If you pass a naked pointer, it should reject and force you to clearly state that you know what you're doing. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
