On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:31:28 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > 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?
What is "dual-use" about having a 'scoped' pointer which is not scoped? It makes as much sense as creating a 'shared' pointer which is not shared. To turn the question around on people who don't see the need to revert the original patch: Why not use std::unique_ptr instead in the cases where the patch has an effect? Thanks, -- Join us in October at Qt Developer Days 2013 - https://devdays.kdab.com Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
