On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:02:52AM +0200, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Again, this is what std::unique_ptr is for. We should not try to turn 
> QScopedPointer into an attempt at a NIH std::unique_ptr. Where people have a 
> need for a std::unique_ptr, they should use it. We should not adapt 
> QScopedPointer to fit the need instead.
> 
why exactly would such a dual-use scoped pointer be a problem? anything
else than dogmatism?
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Reply via email to