> On 3 May 2016, at 13:31, Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> 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, the > other implements shared ownership, is copyable and movable, has the overhead > of a separate control block, and is Qt-specific.
OK. But a function could return a unique_ptr, right? the caller of that function would then be restricted from doing anything that results in a copy? >> Is it OK to use unique_ptr in public API starting in 5.7? > > No. Because of the convention that we return only Qt data structures, never STL ones? or because we’re not sure if all compilers support unique_ptr? Or something else? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
