On Tuesday 3. September 2013 11.44.58 Stephen Kelly wrote: > On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:39:58 Simon Hausmann wrote: > > > Adding a move contructor to QScopedPointer makes no sense, because > > > moving > > > means 'escaping the scope', which breaks the fundamental point of > > > QScopedPointer. QScopedPointer is different to std::unique_ptr and > > > should > > > remain so. > > > > The only argument I can see in your email that explains _why_ this feature > > shouldn't be added to QScopedPointer is NIH. > > > > What is the price of NIH here? Compared to the value we're adding at the > > same time to developers who are not able to rely on C++11 yet? > > Em, what? > > I suppose you didn't read the patch. Am I correct? > > The patch *only* has an effect for people using C++11, where it is redundant > because of std::unique_ptr.
Eeek, I overlooked that detail (that I admit is rather important :) Please disregard my earlier email then. Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
