On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:36:12AM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: > Il 10/06/19 23:45, Kevin Kofler ha scritto: > > Perhaps you forgot to read the part where I said: > > > > > I, for one, don't give a darn about all those new C++11/14/whatever STL > > > features. > > That's a straw man. Since YOU don't care, then NOBODY cares.
We've seen "In my projects, I've _always_ written my own pimpl_ptr, because I might want to use it in backend components that don't use Qt. I'd suggest boost::intrusive_ptr." in https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-May/036137.html which is pretty much the same pattern of argument. Can we at the very least agree that each party is allowed to use the same *pattern* of reasoning in this discussion, no matter on how much merit we see in the individual argument? > Sorry, plonking you. ... Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
