On Tuesday, 11 February 2020 20:19:36 CET André Pönitz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:15:11PM +0000, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote: > > I want to summarize intermediate results of the discussion and return it > > back to the track. > > > > > > Subject: using smart pointers in the API. > > Good idea. Better to use than not because of automatic lifetime > > management, > > *shrug* > > You seem to repeat your initial statements. > > QObject parents _do_ manage lifetime to start with. > > > Subject: raw pointers for passing mandatory parameters vs. using > > references. > > Allow both approaches, recommend using references (and/or smart > > pointers) when acceptable. > > > > Not too many arguments collected here, just > > try to make Qt API more modern. > > Again only your statement. > > The issue itself has been discussed over and over again. > > Allowing _both_ I have not seen actively endorsed by anyone, > this only makes a messy incosnsistent API. > I would allow both. It is the only way to remain source compatible, while making it possible for those that wish to, to follow the so-called Core guidelines for C++.
'Allan _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
