On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 02:04:36 PDT Lars Knoll wrote: > > On 24 May 2017, at 00:35, Giuseppe D'Angelo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Thiago Macieira > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We are arguing whether the change makes the code uglier and is worth that > >> ugliness. I'm not sold on that. Leave those const behind until Qt 6, > >> unless > >> you can show that engaging the move constructor is important. > > > > What about defining a (private) macro centrally and using it in those > > places, as it has been proposed? > > +1 on that. It avoids the uglyness of having a complicated #ifdef that we'd > probably have in multiple places. It'll also ensure we can do the changes > now and the we won't forget to fix it when we move over to Qt 6.
"We won't forget when we move to Qt 6" is not an argument. Just add the necessary ### Qt6 macro and we won't forget. The ### Qt5 that remained in Qt5 weren't because we forgot. It's because they were too difficult to apply or broke too much when applied. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
