On Monday 26 August 2024 10:39:56 GMT-7 Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > On 26.08.24 08:43, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > >> IMHO, (1) is not an acceptable option. Us C++ professionals having > >> identified this problem after years of it lying dormant, it behooves us, > >> at the very least, to educate our users about this, e.g. by adding docs, > >> and maybe a qWarning() in ~QVariant(), if we don't do (2). > > > > If it's not an issue, why is (1) unacceptable? > > It's _guesstimated_ to be no issue, based on sampling qt5.git and > qt-creator.git. > > What is unacceptable in (1) (doing nothing) is not even _informing_ > users about what we found¹, so _they_ can decide for themselves what to do. > > ¹ neither at compile-time, nor runtime, nor coding time (static checker) > nor at documentation reading time. > > We want our APIs to be easy to use and hard to abuse. It's easy to abuse > QVariant in this way, so it behooves us to try to do _something_ about it.
A runtime warning is unacceptable because it adds to the cost of the 99.99% who don't have a throwing destructor. A compile-time warning implies having a way to disable it with "I know that, just ignore it" which is maintenance for us. My problem with this is the cost on us, to maintain such a thing that has never been a problem and likely never will. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
