On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Stephen Kelly <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 19:48:53 Knoll Lars wrote: > > Given that we have less then 3 weeks until feature freeze (1) or (3) > sound > > more attractive for 5.2. > > That's not relevant. > > QScopedPointer is not moved anywhere in Qt 5.2. No code depends on the > patch. > My revert should be approved and we should go with option 4: > > 4) We revert the change that added moving to QScopedPointer. When there is > a > need for QUniquePointer in the future, it is added. The new QUniquePointer > shouldn't have the bug I pointed out previously regarding constness: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.qt.devel/12900/focus=12915 > > Preferably it shouldn't have other bugs either, and it should be compared > to > std::unique_ptr during review. > > > I believe that c++11's unique_ptr is already available to most developers > > using Qt, so in that case, it might make more sense to leave > > QScopedPointer as in 5.1 (since an exact copy of that class is not > > available in C++11), and refer people to unique_ptr for the other use > > cases. > > Particularly as any downstream who is able to move a QScopedPointer (and > therefore is using c++11) does have std::unique_ptr. > > So, to end the discussion, please +2 the patch: > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,64428 > I also agree with this.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
