[Development] Coin production update

Hi all, Coin production will be updated today on Tue Nov 6 08:00 UTC 2018. See attached change log for related patches. Ystävällisin terveisin / Kind regards, Aapo Keskimölö | Senior Software Engineer | Coin Software Lead aapo.keskim...@qt.io | +358 44 559 2378

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 1:07 AM Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development < development@qt-project.org> wrote: > Note however that those children are deleted explicitly (via manual > calls to delete), and NOT via the parent/child relation. > Noted. When I started that thread I didn't intend it to become o

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

Hi, Il 05/11/18 23:41, Konstantin Shegunov ha scritto: But at least for QApplication I would consider having children being common practice and actually Qt does this too: [snippet] Interesting point, I haven't thought about it. Note however that those children are deleted explic

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:02 PM Elvis Stansvik wrote: > But seems to me it would be a slippery slope to accept more > exceptions. You say exception, but I say expected behavior, which is actually the crux of the disagreement. > What's next, will I have to implement the destruction > myself in

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 21:31:26 +0200, Konstantin Shegunov wrote: > 1) Is parenting to the application object a thing? The title of the bug report is about QCoreApplication, while the demo code is a QApplication - so I'm not 100% sure if I completely understood the discussion. But at least for QA

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

Den mån 5 nov. 2018 kl 21:35 skrev Thiago Macieira : > > On Monday, 5 November 2018 12:07:15 PST Elvis Stansvik wrote: > > If it is to be the same as all other QObjects, then it should maintain > > its current behavior I think. The destruction of children happens in > > the QObject destructor. I do

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

On Monday, 5 November 2018 12:07:15 PST Elvis Stansvik wrote: > If it is to be the same as all other QObjects, then it should maintain > its current behavior I think. The destruction of children happens in > the QObject destructor. I don't even think one have to look at the > QObject destructor doc

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

Den mån 5 nov. 2018 kl 20:58 skrev Tomasz Siekierda : > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 20:32, Konstantin Shegunov wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Since we couldn't agree, I'd love to see some more opinions about this > > one.[1] > > > > Specifically: > > 1) Is parenting to the application object a thing? > >

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

On Monday, 5 November 2018 11:57:44 PST Tomasz Siekierda wrote: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 20:32, Konstantin Shegunov wrote: > > Hello, > > Since we couldn't agree, I'd love to see some more opinions about this > > one.[1] > > > > Specifically: > > 1) Is parenting to the application object a thing?

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 20:32, Konstantin Shegunov wrote: > > Hello, > Since we couldn't agree, I'd love to see some more opinions about this one.[1] > > Specifically: > 1) Is parenting to the application object a thing? Never done it myself. But Q*Application is clearly marked as derived from QObj

Re: [Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

Den mån 5 nov. 2018 kl 20:32 skrev Konstantin Shegunov : > > Hello, > Since we couldn't agree, I'd love to see some more opinions about this one.[1] I may be missing some detail, but I think what Thiago says makes sense. When children are destroyed, you know you're in the QObject destructor (from

[Development] Opinions on QTBUG-71545

Hello, Since we couldn't agree, I'd love to see some more opinions about this one.[1] Specifically: 1) Is parenting to the application object a thing? 1.a) ... and should it be allowed (i.e. accepting the proposed change)? 1.b) .. if not allowed, should we put a warning in the documentation that i