Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 17:00:15 PDT, Olivier Goffart escreveu:
> Because of the convention that we do not want our ABI to depends on the
> STL's ABI. So we can't use standard container in the signature of
> exported functions.
Which has saved our hides twice in the past few years
Am Dienstag, 3. Mai 2016, 14:19:00 CEST schrieb Shawn Rutledge:
> > On 3 May 2016, at 13:31, Marc Mutz wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday 03 May 2016 13:14:05 Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> >
> >> In what ways are they different?
> >
> >
> > One implements unique ownership, isn't copyable, only movable, has a
> On 3 May 2016, at 13:31, Marc Mutz wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 03 May 2016 13:14:05 Shawn Rutledge wrote:
>> In what ways are they different?
>
> One implements unique ownership, isn't copyable, only movable, has almost
> zero
> overhead (with a stateless deleter), and is standardised from C++11
On Tuesday 03 May 2016 13:14:05 Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> In what ways are they different?
One implements unique ownership, isn't copyable, only movable, has almost zero
overhead (with a stateless deleter), and is standardised from C++11 on, the
other implements shared ownership, is copyable and m
These are completely different.
Maybe you mean
shared_ptr vs. QSharedPointer ?
Philippe
On Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:05 +
Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> In what ways are they different?
>
> Is it OK to use unique_ptr in public API starting in 5.7?
>
> How about in internal implementation?
>
>
In what ways are they different?
Is it OK to use unique_ptr in public API starting in 5.7?
How about in internal implementation?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
